Excommunications Specially Reserved to the Holy See

To the first series belong thirteen excommunications, of which twelve are contained in the bull Apostolicae sedis, but one was afterward added from the constitution Romanus pontifex. The first twelve, with the tenth excepted, are taken from the Bull In Coena.

Canon 2314 I, Omnes a Christiana fide apostatae et omnes et singuli haeretici aut schismatici incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem; nisi moniti resipuerint priventur beneficio, etc. (All apostates from the Christian faith, and each and every heretic or schismatic, incur excommunication ipso facto; if, after being warned, they do not repent, they are to be deprived of any benefice, and so forth.)

The absolution from the above excommunication to be given in the forum of conscience is specially reserved to the Holy See. If, however, the crime of apostasy, heresy, or schism has been brought before the external tribunal of the local Ordinary in any way, even by voluntary confession, the same Ordinary, but not the Vicar-General without a special mandate, can absolve the penitent by his ordinary authority in the external forum, when abjuration has previously been made, according to law and other conditions to be complied with have been fulfilled; but one so absolved can afterwards be absolved from his sin in the forum of conscience by any confessor. But the abjuration is held to have been lawfully made when it is made before the local Ordinary or his delegate and two witnesses at least (Can. 2314, sec. 2).

Canon 1325, sec, 2, defines the terms used in this censure, "If anyone, after having received baptism, while retaining the name of Christian pertinaciously denies of any the doctrines which are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith or doubts about it, he is a heretic; if he wholly abandons the Christian faith, he is an apostate; finally, if he refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic." Canon 2318 II. In excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae speciali modo reservatam ipso facto incurrunt, opere publici juris facto, editores librorum apostatarum, haereticorum et schismaticorum, qui apostasiam, haeresim, schisma propugnant, itemque eosdem libros aliosve per apostolicas litteras nominatim prohibitos defendentes aut scienter sine debita licentia legentes vel retinentes, Editores. (There incur ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner, once the work has been made public, the publishers of books by apostates, heretics and schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy or schism; and likewise those who defend such books, or others prohibited by name in apostolic letters, or who knowingly read or keep them without the required permission.)—The publishers of books defending apostasy, heresy, and schism, written by apostates, heretics, and schismatics, incur this censure when the book is published.

Defendentes——Also those who defend those same books or others prohibited by name by apostolic letters, such as Fénelon’s Explication des Maximes des Saints.

Legentes.—Those who read them without leave knowing that they are forbidden under censure.

Retinentes.—Retaining for any purpose whatever without leave. Canon 2322 III. Ad ordinem sacerdotalem non promotus si Missae celebrationem simulaverit aut sacramentalem confessionem exceperit, excommunicationem ipso facto contrahit, speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatam; et insuper laicus quidem privetur pensione aut munere, si quod habeat in Ecclesia, aliisque poenis pro gravitate culpae puniatur; clericus vero deponatur. (One not promoted to the priestly order who simulates the celebration of Mass or hears a sacramental confession contracts ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner; and further, if a layman, let him be deprived of any pension or office he may hold in the Church, and punished with other penalties according to the gravity of his fault; but a cleric is to be deposed.)

Simulaverit—So that onlookers think he is saying Mass.

Confessionem—So that the penitent makes his confession with a view to absolution. Canon 2332 IV. Omnes et singuli cujuscumque status, gradus seu conditionis etiam regalis, episcopalis vel cardinalitiae fuerint, a legibus, decretis, mandatis Romani Pontificis pro tempore existentis ad Universale Concilium appellantes, sunt suspecti de haeresi et ipso facto contrahunt excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae speciali modo reservatam.

Appellantes—Physical persons who appeal from the Pope to an Oecumenical Council, not to a future Pope or to the reigning Pope better informed. Canon 2333 V. Recurrentes ad laicam potestatem ad impediendas litteras vel acta quaelibet a Sede Apostolica vel ab ejusdem Legatis profecta, eorumve promulgationem vel executionem directe vel indirecte prohibentes, aut eorum causa sive eos ad quos pertinent litterae vel acta sive alios laedentes vel perterrefacientes, ipso facto subjaceant excommunicationi Sedi Apostolicae speciali modo reservatae. (Those who have recourse to the lay power in order to impede any letters or acts whatsoever issuing from the Apostolic See or from its Legates, or who directly or indirectly forbid their promulgation or execution, or who on that account injure or terrify either those to whom the letters or acts pertain or any others, are ipso facto subject to an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner.)

Recurrentes——Those incur this censure who with effect have recourse to the civil authority to impede any letters or acts of any kind issued by the Holy See, the Roman Congregations, Offices, Legates, Nuncios, Apostolic Delegates.

Prohibentes—Preventing in any way their promulgation and execution.

Laedentes—Injuring and frightening with effect those to whom the letters belong or others concerned in their promulgation and execution. Canon 2334.

VI. Excommunicatione latae sententiae speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservata plectuntur: (1) Qui leges, mandata, vel decreta contra libertatem aut jura Ecclesiae edunt.

(2) Qui impediunt directe vel indirecte exercitium jurisdictionis ecclesiasticae sive interni sive externi fori, ad hoc recurrentes ad quamlibet laicalem potestatem. (There are punished with an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner: (1) those who issue laws, mandates or decrees against the liberty or the rights of the Church; (2) those who directly or indirectly impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or of the external forum, having recourse for this purpose to any lay power whatsoever.)

Edunt.—Public authorities who make laws, issue mandates and decrees against the liberty and rights of the Church, incur this censure.

Impediunt.—As also do those who hinder with effect in any way the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by having recourse to any sort of lay authority. Canon 2341 VII. Si quis contra praescriptum [privilegii fori] ausus fuerit ad judicem laicum trahere aliquem ex S. *(If anyone, against the prescription of the privilege of the forum, shall have dared to drag before a lay judge any one of the Most Holy)*R.E. Cardinalibus, vel Legatis Sedis Apostolicae, vel officialibus majoribus Romanae Curiae, ob negotia ad eorum munus pertinentia, (Cardinals, or Legates of the Apostolic See, or the major officials of the Roman Curia, on account of business pertaining to their office,) vel Ordinarium proprium, contrahit ipso facto excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae speciali modo reservatam. (or his own Ordinary, contracts ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner.)

Trahere—Those who without leave of the Holy See summon as defendants, not as witnesses, Cardinals, Nuncios, Delegates Apostolic, or their own Ordinary before a lay judge in a civil or criminal action incur this censure.

Ausus.—Full knowledge and deliberation are required to incur the censure. Canon 2343 VIII. Qui violentas manus injecerit in personam S. *(Whoever lays violent hands on the person of a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church,)*R.E. Cardinalis vel Legati Romani Pontificis . . . Patriarchae, Archiepiscopi, Episcopi etiam titularis tantum, incurrit in excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae speciali modo reservatam. (of a Patriarch, Archbishop, or Bishop even merely titular, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner.)

Violentas—One who inflicts an injury which amounts to a grievous sin on the body, liberty, or dignity of any of the Prelates mentioned incurs this censure. The injury must be personal and by deed, not by word. Canon 2345 IX. Usurpantes vel detinentes per se vel per alios bona aut jura ad Ecclesiam Romanam pertinentia, subjaceant excommunicationi latae sententiae speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatae. (Those who usurp or withhold, by themselves or through others, goods or rights belonging to the Roman Church, are subject to an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner.)

Usurpantes.—Seizing and holding as one’s own what belongs to another.

Detinentes Keeping what belongs to the Roman Church though it might have been bought from another who seized it.

Jura.—Rights of all sorts, but here the rights of the Temporal Power of the Pope are specially intended. Canon 2360 X. Omnes fabricatores vel falsarii litterarum decretorum vel rescriptorum Sedis Apostolicae vel iisdem litteris, decretis vel rescriptis scienter utentes incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatam. (All forgers or falsifiers of letters, decrees or rescripts of the Apostolic See, and those who knowingly make use of such letters, decrees or rescripts, incur ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner.)

Fabricatores—Forgers and falsifiers of letters, decrees, and rescripts of the Holy See are all subject to this censure.

Utentes—-Those who make use of letters, decrees, and rescripts forged or falsified by others. They must know that the documents which they use are forged or falsified.

Canon 2363 XI. Si quis per seipsum vel per alios confessarium de sollicitationis crimine apud Superiores falso denunciaverit, ipso facto incurrit in excommunicationem speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatam, a qua nequit ullo in casu absolvi, nisi falsam denuntiationem formaliter retractaverit, et damna, si qua inde secuta sint, pro viribus reparaverit, imposita insuper gravi ac diuturna poenitentia, firmo praescripto Can. (If anyone, by himself or through others, falsely denounces a confessor to Superiors for the crime of solicitation, he incurs ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner, from which he cannot in any case be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and, as far as he is able, repaired any damage that has followed from it, a grave and long penance being imposed besides.) 894. By Canon 894 the sin, apart from the censure, is reserved to the Holy See.

On this matter, see above, Penance, Chapter XI.

This excommunication is contracted by:

I. All apostates from the Christian faith, and all and each heretics or schismatics (canon 2314, § 1, 1°, and § 2). This excommunication is reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner only insofar as absolution is to be imparted in the forum of conscience (cited canon, § 3; cf. 3, b). Who come under the name of apostates, heretics, and schismatics, see canon 1325, § 2 and volume I, n. 492. Note, however, that it is required that apostasy, heresy, or schism be externally manifested. For the rest, observe:

1. As to apostates. Here belong both those who reject every religion, such as atheists, pantheists, naturalists, and so-called free-thinkers; and those who pass over, for example, to Judaism, Mohammedanism, or paganism; but not those who are only practically indifferent.

2. As to heretics. It is not required that someone be enrolled in some heretical sect. Those enrolled in a sect, however, are deemed, for the external forum, to have contracted the censure, although perhaps internally they are not formal heretics and therefore have not in fact contracted the censure (n. 862).

3. Schismatics. It is not required that someone be enrolled in a schismatic body; but neither is it enough that someone, even habitually, transgress special commands of the Supreme Pontiff. For the rest, note:

a) Unless they, namely apostates, heretics, or schismatics, having been warned, come to their senses, they are to be deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other function, if they have any in the Church; they are to be declared infamous; and clerics, after a repeated warning, are to be deposed (canon 2314, § 1, 2°). If they have given their name to a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they are ipso facto infamous, and clerics ipso facto and without any declaration lose any offices whatever, and, after a warning has been given in vain, are to be degraded (canon 2314, § 1, 3°).

b) As to absolution from the excommunication set forth, observe:

alpha) Absolution to be imparted in the forum of conscience is reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner (canon 2314, § 2). The faculty of absolving any penitents whatever, except heretics who purposely disseminate heresy among the faithful, from any censures and ecclesiastical penalties incurred on account of heresies externalized either with no one hearing or noticing, or before others, is customarily granted through the Sheet of the Sacred Penitentiary. Nevertheless it cannot be exercised except in the act of sacramental confession and for the forum of conscience only, after a secret abjuration has first been made before the confessor. Moreover, a salutary penance is to be imposed, together with frequency of the sacraments and the obligation of repairing the scandals caused. For the forum of conscience no form of abjuration seems prescribed; hence, for example, these words of the Profession of Faith at the end suffice: "I likewise condemn and reject any heresies whatever condemned by the Church."

beta) If the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism has in any way been brought to the external forum of the local Ordinary, even by voluntary confession, that same Ordinary, but not the Vicar General without a special mandate, can by his ordinary authority absolve in the external forum the one who has come to his senses, after an abjuration juridically performed and with the other things to be observed by law observed; and one thus absolved can then be absolved from sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. Abjuration is held to have been juridically performed when it is made before the local Ordinary himself or his delegate and at least two witnesses (canon 2314, § 2). As to the form of abjuration, in practice the Profession of Faith which is placed at the beginning of the Code suffices.

Question: whether those doubtfully baptized or doubtfully validly baptized, who are guilty of apostasy, heresy, or schism, are subject to excommunication.

Response: They are or are not subject to the excommunication according as in fact they were validly or not validly baptized. Since this here and now is doubtful, absolution is to be granted as a precaution if they are converted to the Church. If you object that those doubtfully baptized or doubtfully validly baptized are not subject to the laws of the Church, I answer: if it concerns laws which deprive someone of some good, they are subject or not subject to them according as valid baptism did or did not take place; if the discussion is of laws which regard an act, see volume I, n. 130.

II. One suspected of heresy who, having been warned and punished according to the norm of canon 2315, has not completely amended himself within six months from the penalty contracted (canon 2315). Moreover, the following are suspected of heresy:

1. Whoever in any way willingly and knowingly helps the propagation of heresy (canon 2316).

2. Whoever communicates in divine things with heretics by actively assisting at their rites (canon 2316; p. 732).

3. Those who enter marriage with an explicit or implicit agreement that all or some of the offspring be educated outside the Catholic Church (canon 2319, § 1, n. 2, § 2).

4. Those who knowingly presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers for baptism (ibid., n. 3).

5. Parents, or those holding their place, who knowingly hand over their children to be educated or instructed in a non-Catholic religion (ibid., n. 4).

6. Whoever has thrown away consecrated species or has taken them away or retained them for an evil purpose (canon 2320).

7. Those appealing from the laws or mandates and decrees of the Roman Pontiff to a Universal Council (canon 2332).

8. Whoever, with hardened spirit, has wallowed for a year in excommunication (canon 2340, § 1).

9. All, even those of episcopal dignity, who knowingly through simony have promoted someone to Orders or have been promoted, or have administered or received other Sacraments (canon 2371).

III. After the work has been made public, publishers of books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy, or schism; likewise those defending these same books or others prohibited by name through apostolic letters, or knowingly reading or retaining them without due permission (canon 2318, § 1). First, note that it is required that the work have been made public, in other words, that it have been multiplied for fairly common use, not merely for the use of a few, say only of students; a fortiori a manuscript is excluded. For the rest, it does not matter whether the work was multiplied by type, by polygraph, or by lithograph. Next it is required that the work made public constitute a book. The word "book" is to be taken as it was formerly taken (cf. canon 6, nn. 2-4), that is, for a literary work of a certain bulk and a certain unity. It is said to be of a certain bulk, for example, to choose a middle point among the different opinions, about eighty pages in octavo. Therefore a separately published letter or sermon, small pamphlets, newspapers or periodicals,¹ are excluded; but not periodical publications, whether taken separately, provided they are of sufficient bulk, or bound in fascicles,² and thus constituting the required unity. Moreover, the following are excommunicated:

1. Publishers of books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy, or schism. It is said:

a) Publishers, namely those properly so called, so that the author of the book as such is not included, but he is included insofar as he procures the publication (canon 2209, § 3). Nor are the owner of the workshop, the typesetters, or those turning the press excommunicated; for they do not concur in the publication formally taken, that is, in the multiplication insofar as this is ordered to fairly common use, or at least they are not such that without their work the publication would not have taken place (cf. canon 2209, § 3).

b) Of apostates, etc. Thus books of infidels or Catholics are not included, even though perhaps they defend apostasy, etc. Yet one who defends apostasy, etc., is presumed to be an apostate, etc.; nor is it required that the author of the book be enrolled in an apostate sect, etc.

c) They defend, that is, with added arguments they defend or recommend; nevertheless it is not required that the book treat professedly of religion.

2. Those defending, or knowingly and without due permission reading or retaining, either the books mentioned under 1, or others prohibited by name through apostolic letters. As to the latter, some require that the apostolic letters have prohibited them under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Holy See. But neither the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, which first established that censure, nor the cited and clear canon permits that condition to be added.

a) Defenders are, for example, those who prevent a book from being destroyed or denounced, one who praises the doctrine contained in the book, or who disapproves its condemnation; but not one who praises the style or genius of the author, or the good doctrine which is found in the book (St. Alphonsus, VII, 297).

b) Knowingly (n. 858) and without due permission reading; concerning this, observe: 1° formal reading is required, so that one who merely hears another reading is not included (St. Alphonsus, VII, 292), nor one who recites from memory what he formerly read, nor one who reads through a book while ignorant of the language; but a blind person who perceives the type with his fingers is included. 2° Reading of notable matter is required, considered either by quantity alone, as if you read two or three pages, or by quality, that is, by danger; in this case even a few lines can suffice, because in them there can be a danger of perversion (St. Alphonsus, VII, 284, 292).

c) Those retaining, namely knowingly and without due permission; moreover, for a notable time, say for three or four days (St. Alphonsus, VII, 295). For the rest, observe: it is all the same whether one retains his own book or another's; whether he retains the book with himself or with another who does not have the faculty; whether he understands the retained book or not. But one is excused who deposits the book with another who has the faculty, and does this with an agreement not to reclaim it except after permission has been obtained; likewise one who retains the book because he is awaiting either the required permission or an occasion of handing it over to the Superior (St. Alphonsus, VII, 295-298).

A bookbinder is indeed counted among those retaining, but is easily excused if he binds books for one having the faculty to read them, or has another just cause. Likewise the custodian of another's library escapes excommunication, unless he retains the books in his own room or house. Finally, where, as in religious houses, there is a common library, it is licit to keep prohibited books in a locked cabinet.

IV. One not promoted to the priestly order, if he simulates the celebration of Mass or hears a sacramental confession (canon 2322, 1°). It is said:

1. One not promoted to the priestly order. Thus the censure regards both a layman and a cleric who has not yet been raised to the priesthood, but not a priest, even though suspended or degraded.

2. If he simulates the celebration of Mass; that is, if he conducts himself in such a way that others judge that the Sacred Rite is being celebrated.

3. Or hears a sacramental confession. What sacramental confession is, see n. 430. It suffices to have heard a sacramental confession, even if absolution is omitted.

Note. If the delinquent mentioned under IV is a layman, he is to be deprived of a pension or function, if he has any in the Church, and is to be punished with other penalties according to the gravity of the fault; but a cleric is to be deposed (cited canon); each, if he has usurped other priestly functions, is to be punished by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault (canon 2322, § 2).

¹ Holy Office, April 21, 1880 (Collectanea, n. 1533).

² Holy Office, January 13, 1892 (Collectanea, n. 1777).

V. All and each, of whatever status, grade, or condition they may be, even royal, episcopal, or cardinalitial, who appeal from the laws, decrees, or mandates of the Roman Pontiff for the time being to a Universal Council (canon 2332).

1. All and each. The excommunication regards only physical persons, not moral persons.

2. From the laws, etc., of the Roman Pontiff for the time being, but not from the laws, etc., of a Sacred Congregation, unless the ordinance was issued by the express or special mandate of the Supreme Pontiff or approved by him in specific form; nor is an appeal from the laws, etc., of a deceased Supreme Pontiff sufficient.

3. To a Universal Council, whether present or future; but an appeal to a Provincial Council or to a future Pontiff is not sufficient.

Note. Those about whom the discussion is under V are also suspected of heresy. But Universities, Colleges, Chapters, or other moral persons, by whatever name they are called, incur an interdict likewise reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner (canon 2332).

VI. Those having recourse to lay power in order to impede letters or any acts proceeding from the Apostolic See or from its Legates, or directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution, or on account of them injuring or terrifying either those to whom the letters or acts pertain or others (canon 2333). Under the name of the Apostolic See also come the Congregations, Tribunals, and Offices through which the Roman Pontiff is accustomed to transact the business of the universal Church (canon 7). Under the name of Legates of the Holy See are included Legates a latere (cf. canon 266), Nuncios and Internuncios (cf. canon 267), and Apostolic Delegates (cf. canon 267). Moreover, the following are excommunicated:

1. Those having recourse to lay power in order to impede any letters or acts proceeding from the aforesaid. It is all the same whether someone has recourse by himself or through another, in writing or by living voice. As to the lay power to which recourse is had, certainly those who enjoy power of jurisdiction are understood, such as the Government, magistrates, and judges. The same seems to be said of those having recourse to persons who possess only administrative power, such as prefects of cities; for the law does not distinguish. Finally, it is required that it concern letters or acts already issued, so that one is not excommunicated who impedes them from being issued.

2. Those directly or indirectly prohibiting the promulgation or execution of the said letters or acts. Those prohibiting are understood to be those who enjoy public authority.¹ Promulgation, however, is taken in the proper sense; hence it is carefully to be distinguished from dissemination. Execution regards all things necessary for the letters or acts to have effect, such as the preparation of instruments by notaries and their notification to the parties.

3. Those injuring or terrifying, on account of the said letters or acts, either those to whom they are directed or others, that is, those to whom their promulgation or execution pertains. It is said injuring, namely gravely, and indeed in the goods of the body. It is disputed whether those injuring in goods of fortune or of the soul, or in honor or reputation, are included. Those denying this rely on the fact that injury properly taken regards the body. Given the controversy, we follow the negative part. Those are called terrifying who inflict very grave fear on someone.

It is more commonly taught that those terrifying are not excommunicated unless the effect has followed, that is, unless the letters or acts have in fact been impeded. It is disputed concerning those injuring; but without reason is a distinction admitted between those injuring and those terrifying.

VII. Those who issue laws, mandates, or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church (canon 2334, § 1).

1. Those issuing laws, etc.; by this expression are included those who effectively concur in making laws, etc., such as ministers who propose laws, deputies who vote for them, the prince who confirms or promulgates them; likewise rulers of provinces or cities who issue a decree, and counselors who assent to it. The censure is contracted when the law has been promulgated, the decree issued, the mandate intimated. Neither notaries who enter laws, etc., into the acts, nor judges who see that they are observed, incur the excommunication.

2. Against the liberty or rights of the Church; these words must be taken in the broadest sense. Therefore those are excommunicated who issue laws, etc., against the right, for example, of teaching evangelical doctrine (canon 1322, § 2), of educating those who desire to devote themselves to ecclesiastical ministries (canon 1352), of founding schools of any discipline whatever, not only elementary, but also middle and higher schools (canon 1375), of requiring that the faithful not publish books which it has not beforehand reviewed by its own judgment, and of prohibiting, for a just cause, books published by anyone whatever (canon 1384, § 1), of freely and independently of civil power acquiring, retaining, and administering temporal goods for pursuing its own proper ends (canon 1495, § 1), which right also belongs to individual churches and other moral persons which have been erected as juridical persons by ecclesiastical authority (canon 1495, § 2), of requiring from the faithful those things which are necessary for divine worship, for the fitting support of clerics and other ministers, and for its remaining proper ends (canon 1496), of possessing its own cemeteries (canon 1206, § 1), of coercing delinquent subjects with penalties both spiritual and temporal (canon 2214, § 1), etc.

Note. Clerics who commit the delict just described are punished with the penalty of suspension or privation of the benefice, office, dignity, pension, or function itself, if perhaps they have any in the Church; religious, however, are punished with privation of office and of active and passive voice and with other penalties according to the norm of the constitutions (canon 2336, § 1).

VIII. Those who directly or indirectly impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, by having recourse for this to any lay power (canon 2334, § 2). For this excommunication to be incurred, it is required:

1. That the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction be impeded. It is not enough to impede the exercise either of the power of order alone, or of merely administrative power, or of natural right. But it is all the same whether the exercise of jurisdiction of the internal forum or the external forum is impeded, whether it is impeded directly, say by acting, for example, against the Bishop, or indirectly, say by vexing officials.

2. That the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction be impeded by means of recourse to any lay power. Therefore this excommunication does not affect a private person who impedes without recourse, nor a Superior or judge who executes or applies the law; but it does affect a Superior who impedes by means of recourse to a higher lay power. For the rest, it does not matter whether recourse is had to legislative power or only to judicial or executive power.

3. That the effect has followed; this is indicated by the very word "impeding."²

Note. Clerics who commit the delict discussed are punished with the penalty of suspension or privation of the benefice, office, dignity, or pension itself according to the norm of the constitutions (canon 2336, § 1).

¹ Formerly it was disputed whether those incurred excommunication who, by private authority, prohibited promulgation or execution. But since the legislator, aware of the controversy, did not change the wording of the law, the more benign, that is, the negative opinion, seems to be followed.

² Pontifical Commission, July 25, 1926 (A.A.S. 1926, p. 394).

IX. Whoever against the prescription of canon 120 has dared to drag before a lay judge any one of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or Legates of the Apostolic See, or major Officials of the Roman Curia for affairs pertaining to their function, or his own Ordinary (canon 2341). The prescription of canon 120, insofar as it must here be kept before the eyes, establishes that Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Bishops, even titular ones, Legates of the Apostolic See, and major Officials of the Roman Curia cannot be summoned before a lay judge for affairs pertaining to their function without the permission of the Apostolic See, unless in some place by special concession there has been derogation at least in part from the privilege of forum (cf. volume I, n. 1153). For the rest, observe:

1. What the words "has dared" signify, see n. 858.

2. Under the name of those dragging do not come judges and other subordinate officials, but private persons who cause the persons mentioned to appear before a lay judge. Moreover, it is required that they be summoned as defendants, or that they be convened; it is not enough that they be summoned as witnesses. Finally, the major Officials of the Roman Curia, not others, must be summoned for affairs pertaining to their function.

3. Legates of the Apostolic See are Nuncios, Internuncios, and Apostolic Delegates. The major Officials of the Roman Curia are: a) the Assessor and Commissary of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office; b) the Assessor and Substitute of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation; c) the Prelate Secretary and Substitute of the Sacred Congregation of Rites; d) the Prelate Secretary and Substitute of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities; e) the Regent of the Sacred Penitentiary; f) the Prelate Secretary of the Apostolic Signatura or Auditor of the Most Holy One; g) the Prelate Auditors of the Sacred Roman Rota; h) the Regent and Substitute of the Apostolic Chancery; i) the Vice-Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church and the Auditor General of the Reverend Apostolic Camera; k) the Substitute of the Secretariat of State; l) the Chancellor of Apostolic Briefs; m) all Prelate Secretaries and Undersecretaries of the other Congregations.

4. Under the name of Ordinary, since it is not said "local Ordinary," there also seems to be included the major Superior of an exempt clerical religious institute (canon 198, § 1).

In view of the word "dragging" and canons 2228 and 2242, § 1, it seems to be required that the summoned person actually appear before the judge.

X. Whoever has laid violent hands on the person of a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church or Legate of the Roman Pontiff, Patriarch, Archbishop, Bishop, even only a titular one (canon 2343, § 2, 1° and § 3). Violent laying on of hands imports an external injury, contained in deed and gravely sinful, whether against the body, or against liberty, say by imprisoning, or against dignity, say by tearing garments (St. Alphonsus, VII, 273). Moreover, it is required that one know the person on whom he inflicts injury to be a Cardinal, etc.

Note. Whoever has laid violent hands on the person of a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church or Legate of the Roman Pontiff is moreover ipso facto infamous and is deprived of benefices, offices, dignities, pensions, and any function whatever, if he has one in the Church (canon 2343, § 2, 2° and 3°).

XI. Those usurping or detaining, by themselves or through others, goods or rights pertaining to the Roman Church (canon 2345). Usurpers are those who occupy another's thing as due to themselves. Hence thieves and robbers are not included.¹ Those detaining are those who unjustly retain a thing usurped, or received from a usurper. This excommunication, however, does not affect those who usurp or detain goods or rights pertaining to churches other than the Roman Church.

Note. If the delinquents are clerics, they are moreover to be deprived of dignities, benefices, offices, and pensions, and declared incapable of them (canon 2345).

XII. All fabricators or falsifiers of letters, decrees, or rescripts of the Apostolic See, or those knowingly using the same letters, decrees, or rescripts (canon 2360, § 1). The following are excommunicated: 1° fabricators, that is, those who compose false letters, decrees, or rescripts; 2° falsifiers, that is, those who so adulterate letters, decrees, or rescripts of the Holy See that the sense is substantially changed; 3° those using such fabricated or adulterated letters, etc., even if they do not obtain the intended effect.

Note. Clerics committing the delict mentioned under XII are moreover to be coerced by other penalties, which can extend even to privation of benefice, office, dignity, and ecclesiastical pension; religious, however, are to be deprived of all offices which they have in religion and of active and passive voice, besides the other penalties established in the proper constitutions of each (canon 2360, § 2).

XIII. Whoever by himself or through others falsely denounces a confessor for the crime of solicitation before Superiors (canon 2363). It is said:

1. By himself or through others, namely "by wickedly procuring that this be done by others."²

2. For the crime of solicitation; concerning this see n. 416 sq.

3. Before Superiors, that is, before those to whom the denunciation must be made, namely before the local Ordinary or the Congregation of the Holy Office (n. 427).

Note 1. The delinquent cannot in any case be absolved from the contracted censure unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and, as far as he can, repaired the damages, if any followed from it, with a grave and long-lasting penance moreover imposed (canon 2363). Thus before absolution there is required both formal retraction before those to whom the denunciation was made, and reparation of damages, insofar as this can be provided here and now; damages, I say, which followed, for example, from the confessor's suspension. In danger of death a retraction suffices, even one drawn up by the confessor, signed by the delinquent, and afterward to be handed over to the local Ordinary or the Congregation of the Holy Office; or, if necessity does not permit that, an oral retraction before two witnesses, for example, the confessor and another person, who can afterward communicate it to the judge. Finally, in a case in which absolution cannot be deferred without danger of infamy, a written retraction left with the confessor suffices; or, if even that cannot be provided, a serious promise of satisfying the obligation as soon as possible.

Note 2. Canon 2363 cited in note 1 is closed with these words: with the prescription of canon 894 remaining firm. Moreover, in view of the cited canon, the sin of false denunciation is the single sin reserved by reason of itself; therefore it is reserved and remains reserved, even if the censure has not been contracted, say because of ignorance, or has been remitted.

¹ Holy Office, March 9, 1870.

² Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae.

The law of the church on the powers of schismatics is as follows:

(a) All schismatics incur ipso facto excommunication, as well as various inhabilities and penalties (Canon 2314). It is fitting that those who separate themselves should be declared outside the communion of the faithful, and this is what Moses commanded to be done at the time of the schism of Core: “Depart from the tent of these wicked men and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be involved in their sin” (Num., xvi. 26).

(b) The excommunicated are forbidden the celebration of Mass and the active use and administration of the Sacraments and sacramentals, except when the faithful apply to them or when there is danger of death, as declared in Canon 2261.

(c) The excommunicated are denied the power of jurisdiction except in certain cases where the Church grants it for the sake of the common good. Thus, they may give absolution in danger of death (Canon 882), or in common error (Canon 209), or at request, if they are not vitandi or sentenced (Canon 2261). It is the teaching of learned authorities that the Roman Church for the good of souls has allowed ecclesiastical jurisdiction to remain in the schismatic Oriental Churches for the conferring of the Sacraments.

972. • Concerning these, the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis reads thus:

We declare subject to a latae sententiae excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff:

I. All apostates from the Christian faith ¹, and each and every heretic, by whatever name they may be designated and of whatever sect they may be ², and those believing them ³, and their receivers, supporters, and generally any defenders of them.

¹ ** Understand apostasy here as a withdrawal from the Christian faith, and an apostate as one who has departed from the Christian faith. And since the crime of apostasy consists in a withdrawal of this kind, it therefore makes no difference whether the apostate has gone over to Judaism or to Paganism, or whether he has fallen into Deism, Atheism, or Indifferentism. And to this last is commonly referred the sect of those who call themselves in Italian liberi pensatori, and in French libres penseurs, whom otherwise you would better call monsters of nature, more foolish than stupid beasts. For beasts follow the guidance of nature. But these two-footed monsters trample upon nature. Namely, just as the bodily eye is ignorant of liberty, so reason and intellect are ignorant of liberty. And just as it is indeed free for you to close your eyes or not to look at the objects placed around you, but it will not likewise be free for you not to see those objects if you look at them with open eyes, so must you also speak concerning truth placed before the eye of the mind which beholds it. Therefore, even the name of the sect itself displays foolishness more stupid than asinine stupidity, so that in this apostasy from the Christian faith that saying of the ancients shines forth most manifestly: the corruption of the best is the worst. But what civil society can also hope for in practice or fear from those men, if they are worthy of this designation, who according to their arbitrary manner of thinking and judging fashion right and wrong for themselves at pleasure, anyone easily sees.

² ** Concerning the crime of heresy, see where faith was treated (volume I, no. 208). Note this, with the distinguished Author of the Rieti Commentary: it makes no difference whether someone has outwardly disclosed heresy by words or only by a deed, for example, if he has attempted to know the secrets of hearts or to divine the future free actions of men, which are open to God alone, through self-moving tables or the so-called Cristacos (magnetized persons). See the Encyclical Letter of the Sacred Inquisition, 30 July 1856 (above, volume I, no. 281), where it is declared that heretical deception is found in these things.

³ ** By those believing them, understand those who believe heretics either explicitly or implicitly.

These are distinguished in the text from heretics: 1. because someone can adhere to errors condemned by heretics, although he does not formally belong to the sects of heretics; 2. because a believer of this kind is understood both if in the forum of conscience he is a heretic properly so called and if he is not altogether a heretic, namely, when internal pertinacity of mind against the faith is not joined with the external act of believing. For under either hypothesis he shows himself a follower of the errors of heretics, and therefore, as one implicated in the cause of heresy, he is punished in the external forum with the penalty of heretics and is subjected to this censure in such a way that he cannot be absolved without a special faculty.

By receivers understand not those who for any other cause receive or conceal them in their houses or lands, but those who directly intend through this to foster or defend the heretic, for example, so that he may thus escape the penalties of heresy.

II. Each and every person knowingly ⁴ reading, without the authority of the Apostolic See ⁵, books ⁶ of the same apostates and heretics ⁷ which defend heresy ⁸, and also books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters ⁹, and those retaining, printing, and in any manner defending those same books ¹⁰.

⁴ ** Knowingly, that is, with knowledge: 1. that the book is by an apostate or a heretic according to the sense of the preceding article; 2. that the book defends heresy; and 3. that the reading is punished by the penalty of this censure. But understand this also of those retaining, printing, etc.

⁵ ** That is, without a faculty granted either by the Supreme Pontiff or by those to whom the Supreme Pontiff has committed the faculty of dispensing.

⁶ ** Whether journals or newspapers are comprehended by these laws, see below where the reading of bad books is treated.

⁷ ** Avanzini raises a doubt (Commentary, no. 7) whether the books of those who are added in the preceding article, namely, believers, supporters, etc., are also comprehended if they defend heresy; and he replies: They do not appear to be comprehended. But immediately he so tempers the assertion that he all but destroys it: provided (he says) that these two things are not verified, namely: 1. that in the book is contained an indubitable defense of heresy or of apostasy from the faith; 2. and that the defense of heresy is made so pertinaciously that it cannot be doubted that the author of the book is certainly a heretic.

⁸ ** To these matters the excellent Rieti Commentary says well: To defend is, if I judge anything rightly, to undertake the patronage of heresy deliberately and as though with all one's strength; wherefore the excommunication does not bind one who reads a book of an apostate or a heretic if it does not defend heresy, even though it contains it, and indeed even defends it, but incidentally, in a few words, and as though while doing something else.

⁹ ** By books prohibited by name are not understood just any books condemned through Apostolic Letters, unless the proper title of the book has been expressed in those Letters. But understand by Apostolic Letters those which proceed immediately in the name of the Roman Pontiff, whether in the form of a Brief, a Bull, an Encyclical, or in any other form, provided that in them is read By Apostolic Authority, or something equivalent. Furthermore, if before this other books not prohibited by name were condemned through Apostolic Letters without any excommunication, or with an excommunication not reserved, one reading them today incurs no excommunication; because our Constitution in the former case does not introduce an excommunication, and in the latter, since it does not enumerate it among the non-reserved censures, has abolished it; and if they were prohibited under some other censure, for example, suspension, this also ceases (Rieti Commentary).

¹⁰ ** Concerning those printing, the Rieti Commentary has these things: To this belong all who cooperate proximately in the printing; and therefore: 1. those who furnish any work whatever for this matter, such as those who set the type, coat it with ink,

moisten the paper, etc.; 2. those who hire their labors, that is, the printer, and all the more the publisher, who is understood to hire the labors of both; and the author of the book, if the book is published through his care. Cretoni adds (Note on this place): With respect to manual workers or subordinate cooperators, in order to incur this censure, besides the required knowledge it must also be judged from the circumstances whether in the case they are to be regarded as formal or material cooperators and, under this latter hypothesis, whether they are excused from the fault of cooperation (add, or at least from the penalty) by a just and proportionate cause or not.

Those defending the book in any manner are considered (Lugo, On Faith, disputation 21, no. 94) those who conceal the book lest it be denounced or burned, or who prevent this by force or fraud; one who tries to persuade others that the book is good and therefore not worthy of prohibition; one who tries to uphold the depraved doctrine contained in it and to defend it from every stain. For all these defend books by deed or word. See Sanchez and Palao, who note that this censure does not comprehend one who approves and praises the good and true doctrine contained in a book, provided that he is not considered to approve the book itself absolutely; nor one who praises the style, eloquence, diction, or talent, provided that he does not assert praise and approval of the book.

III. Schismatics and those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves or depart from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff for the time being ¹¹.

IV. Each and every person, of whatever state, rank, or condition they may be, appealing from ordinances or mandates of the Roman Pontiffs for the time being to a future general Council, and also those by whose aid, counsel, or favor the appeal was made ¹².

¹¹ ** By schismatics properly so called are understood those who not only pertinaciously depart from the subjection owed to the Roman Pontiff, but, erecting themselves into an authority, establish new assemblies separated from the center of unity, such as the promoters of national churches, or follow those same assemblies. And these indeed pertain to perfect schism, even if you understand schism, as they call it, pure, namely, with which no heresy is mingled, which scarcely occurs. For if a schismatic holds something contrary to the faith, for example, that the Roman Pontiff is not the head of the Church, or indeed is, but only the primacy of honor belongs to him, as the Jansenist hypocrites hold, he would in addition be a heretic and therefore entangled in a twofold excommunication.

But by those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves or depart from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff for the time being are signified those who pertain to imperfect schism. And in this sense Avanzini (Commentary, no. 10) thinks that those who call themselves liberal Catholics are comprehended, namely, those who, setting aside the laws and mandates of the Roman Pontiff, publicly conduct themselves as though released from his obedience, since these also in the true sense are rebels against the obedience of the Roman Pontiff for the time being.

¹² ** Lest those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves or depart from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff for the time being, concerning whom the preceding article treats, should pretend to do this with impunity under the pretext of an appeal to a future Council, contrary to the defined rights of the Primacy, this special crime of rebellion was punished with a special censure.

But to incur this censure of excommunication it is necessary to appeal to a future Council. Therefore, if an appeal has been made to a future Roman Pontiff or to a present Council, there is no place for the censure. But if not some individual person, but some community or moral person, has interposed an appeal of this kind, it incurs the Interdict reserved in a special manner, as will be said below.

V. All who kill, mutilate, strike, seize, imprison, detain, or pursue in a hostile manner Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and Legates or Nuncios of the Apostolic See, or cast them out of their Dioceses, Territories, Lands, or Dominions; and also those commanding these things, or ratifying them, or furnishing aid, counsel, or favor in them ¹³.

VI. Those directly or indirectly impeding the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, and those having recourse for this purpose to the secular forum and procuring or issuing its mandates, or furnishing aid or favor ¹⁴.

¹³ ** The excellent Rieti Commentary thus treats these: By this censure are punished injuries against the body, liberty, and dignity of the Princes of the Church. Against the body, namely, by killing, mutilating, or striking. To kill is to put to death in any manner, for example, by poison, hunger, etc.; to mutilate is to cut off a member; by striking we understand every injury which is done by the hand.

Against liberty, namely, by seizing, imprisoning, or detaining. To seize is to apprehend. To imprison is to cast or confine one in any place, even a private one. To detain is to keep one enclosed in any place lest he be able to depart.

Against dignity, namely, by pursuing in a hostile manner or casting out. To pursue in a hostile manner is to pursue with the intention of harming; therefore those who pursue them for the sake of frightening or despoiling them do not incur this excommunication. To cast out is to expel one previously received, and therefore those who do not receive them are not bound by it. From their Lands or dominions: interpreters understand by Lands also those where they maintain a domicile or were born. Nor is it distinguished by what authority they cast them out, public or private, or in what manner, whether by force employed, by threats, or by a bare precept.

Moreover, in this place not only those who strike, mutilate, etc., and those who furnish them aid or favor are excommunicated, but also those who ratify it. But in order that these incur excommunication, it is necessary: 1. that the striking, mutilation, etc., was done in their name, because someone cannot ratify what was not done in his name (chapter 23, On the Sentence of Excommunication, in the Sext); 2. that at the time when these things were perpetrated, they could have authorized and therefore commanded them, for ratification is retroactive and is equated with a mandate.

¹⁴ ** The action which is restrained by this excommunication is to impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, both ordinary and delegated, whether of the external or internal forum; of this kind especially is that which the Sacred Penitentiary uses.

Moreover, to the power of jurisdiction belongs the issuing of laws and mandates, binding and loosing, conferring Benefices, deputing to ecclesiastical duties, sending preachers, visiting a Diocese, and committing to others for performance those things which belong to Order. And these things must be distinguished both from those which pertain to the power of Order, such as performing sacred rites, ministering the Sacraments, blessing and consecrating persons and things, etc.; and from those which are more matters of office or right, such as teaching, preaching, acquiring or alienating goods, and, in a word, entering into contracts.

Therefore, in order that someone be said to impede the exercise of jurisdiction, it is necessary that he oppose the one in whom jurisdiction resides, for example, an Ordinary, Pastor, or judge, and indeed oppose him so that he neither begin nor continue to use the jurisdiction. To this also pertains if someone impedes the execution of any sentence or decree of this kind, especially if he does this by appealing or otherwise having recourse in any manner to the lay power, as it is said, on account of abuse.

Or: 2. by issuing mandates, which is understood of one who establishes or decrees a mandate.

Or: 3. by having recourse to the secular forum and procuring its mandates, namely, in order to elude the judgment of the ecclesiastical forum.

Or finally: 4. all those who furnish aid, counsel, or favor in all these things, for example, those who procure mandates for persons wishing to impede.

Thus far from the excellent Rieti Commentary, where it is added that, when the effect has not yet followed, neither those impeding, nor those issuing mandates, nor those having recourse, and consequently neither those furnishing aid, etc., contract the excommunication. The contrary opinion, at least with respect to those having recourse, pleased Avanzini (Commentary, no. 11). But (the Rieti Commentary subjoins at article 8), I think that one ought not easily to depart from the general rules of law.

But this excommunication is incurred by those impeding the exercise of this jurisdiction, namely: 1. by some deed, for example, by force, threats, or command, either directly, for example, if someone threatens a Bishop with death, etc., or indirectly, as if by a deed

VII. Those directly or indirectly compelling lay judges to draw ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal contrary to the canonical provisions ¹⁵; likewise those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church ¹⁶.

VIII. Those having recourse to the lay power ¹⁷ in order to impede he prohibits those attached to the Ecclesiastical Court from performing their duty in that matter, etc. > any letters or acts ¹⁸ proceeding from the Apostolic See or from any of its Legates or Delegates ¹⁹, and those directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution ²⁰, or on account of them injuring or gravely frightening either the parties themselves or others ²¹.

IX. All forgers of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and of petitions concerning grace or justice, signed by the Roman Pontiff, or by the Vice-Chancellors of the Holy Roman Church or those acting in their place, or at the mandate of the same Roman Pontiff; and also those falsely publishing Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and also those falsely signing petitions of this kind under the name of the Roman Pontiff or the Vice-Chancellor or of one acting in the place of the aforesaid persons ²².

X. Those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin even at the point of death > if another priest, although not approved for confessions, can hear the confession of the dying person without grave infamy and scandal being likely to arise ²³.

XI. Those usurping or sequestering ²⁴ jurisdiction, goods, or revenues belonging to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their Churches or Benefices ²⁵.

XII. Those invading, destroying, or detaining, by themselves or through others, Cities, Lands, places, or rights belonging to the Roman Church; or those usurping, disturbing, or retaining the supreme jurisdiction in them; and also those furnishing aid, counsel, or favor toward any of the aforesaid acts ²⁶.

¹⁵ ** Formerly (Bull Coenae, section 15), judges who drew Ecclesiastics before their tribunal were subject to excommunication; today those who compel the lay judges themselves to this are subject, that is, those who exercise judgment by lay power. Thus the Declaration of the Sacred Inquisition, 1 February 1871: The word compelling certainly indicates that the excommunication does not reach those who are subordinate, even if they were judges, but was imposed only upon those who, compelled by no one, either perform such acts or compel others to perform them. Therefore, he contracts the excommunication who, either directly, for example, by threats, or indirectly, for example, through another, compels ecclesiastics to be drawn into court as though accused, whether on account of a penal cause for even a most grave crime, or on account of a civil cause of even a single farthing.

The Constitution limits it: Contrary to the canonical sanctions, namely, unless at some time through them an ecclesiastic is permitted to be drawn before a lay tribunal, with the conditions under which this is permitted otherwise observed.

¹⁶ ** With respect to the other part of this article, attention is directed to those issuing, that is, establishing laws or decrees against the liberty and rights of the Church, namely, of the universal Church.

Laws are those which are established in perpetuity by the supreme power; Decrees are those which are issued generally by any power, for example, by the Prefect of a city, Municipalities, etc., but not those which are issued against individual persons or in individual cases, which you would rather call mandates, and therefore not the sentences of judges.

But the words Against the liberty or rights, etc., extend most widely and strike altogether every kind of law or decree by which not only the exercise of ecclesiastical power, whether of Jurisdiction or Order, but any other right is intercepted, restricted, or disturbed, such as the right of teaching; promoting to Orders; conducting public supplications outside churches or at night; erecting Churches, Benefices, and Pious Associations; and conferring Benefices without any intervention of the lay power; indeed, also the rights which belong to the Church as a Society, such as the right of acquiring by acts of last will or among the living; alienating; or leasing her goods beyond nine years, etc.

But this excommunication is incurred by those issuing laws or decrees of this kind by lay authority; and if these were proposed by the vote, for example, of the people, senate, etc., all who voted for them are bound by this censure as soon as they have been promulgated.

¹⁷ ** Namely, to persons who exercise some jurisdiction over citizens, of which kind, for example, are judges, presidents, prefects of cities, etc. Nor does it matter in what manner someone had recourse, whether by appealing, by calling upon them, or by presenting a petition.

¹⁸ ** Acts of the Apostolic See are called those which are transacted at Rome by the Roman Pontiff or at his mandate, whether they contain a spiritual or temporal matter.

¹⁹ ** By Delegates understand those to whom the transaction of some matter is committed.

²⁰ ** Promulgation, rather than being taken for dissemination, which consists in fact, appears to be taken for publication in the customary form and manner, which consists rather in law. It is disputed whether, in order to incur this censure, it is necessary that the publication or execution be prohibited by public authority. The Rieti Commentary follows those affirming, for the Pontiff appears to speak of that prohibition which flows from recourse to the lay power.

²¹ ** To injure appears to be taken in the strict signification, by which, namely, the body is said to be injured. But to frighten indicates the instilling of fear which is certainly grave. By the parties themselves understand those to whom the Apostolic Letters or Acts pertain, but by others those to whom the publication or execution of the Apostolic Letters pertains.

²² ** Not all forgers incur this excommunication, but only forgers of Apostolic Letters, whether they contain grace or justice. Those are said to contain grace which contain some favor or liberality of the Roman Pontiff; but letters of justice are those which pertain to lawsuits and therefore to the cognizance or determination of some cause. Indeed, Apostolic Letters or rescripts do not pertain here if they have not yet been signed or furnished with a seal or leaden bulla, because, since they are not yet authentic, they do not yet avail.

Since the crime of forgery concerning letters of this kind can be committed in several ways, it is punished with excommunication if it is done: 1. by corrupting; or 2. by fabricating Apostolic Letters; or 3. by signing petitions, etc. By corrupting, whenever something is varied, deleted, or added, which must be estimated not materially but formally, that is, from the sense principally intended by the Roman Pontiff. By fabricating, whenever a false writing is substituted. Finally, by signing petitions, etc., whenever Fiat is falsely subscribed in them.

But in order that the censure be incurred, it is necessary: 1. that these things were committed with evil intent; 2. that, if they concern another, this gravely harms or can harm the other; I said, if another, for if they concern only you, it suffices to have falsified them in any manner; 3. finally, that you have perfected and completed the falsity. But when the falsity has been perfected, the excommunication is immediately incurred even if you do not use the falsified Letters or Rescripts. Except that which is committed by fabricating Apostolic Letters, before whose publication this censure is not incurred. But one who uses these Letters incurs another excommunication reserved to the Bishop, as will be said below.

²³ Concerning this article there is nothing to be added to those things which were said above (at no. 584).

²⁴ Someone is said to usurp when, as though using a power of ruling and by his own right, he takes prior possession of something (Suarez, On Censures, disputation 21, section 2, no. 96). Therefore thieves, robbers, etc., are not comprehended here, as the Sacred Inquisition also declared, 9 March 1870. But to sequester in the present case is to impede something from being received by those to whom it belongs.

²⁵ By jurisdiction understand either spiritual or temporal jurisdiction (Suarez, loc. cit., no. 95); but by goods understand immovable or movable goods, or even rights; and by revenues, whatever a thing bears or is received in consideration of the thing. Moreover, those jurisdictions, goods, and revenues are understood which belong to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices. Avanzini (Commentary, no. 18) thinks that the goods of monasteries also pertain here, as belonging to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches. Indeed, in the Bull Coenae (section 17), from which this article is taken, it is said: Belonging to any ecclesiastical persons by reason of Churches, monasteries, and other Ecclesiastical benefices. But the word other there suggests that Monasteries are comprehended under the name of benefices rather than churches; otherwise, as is acutely noted in the Rieti Commentary, goods of this kind, etc., belong either to the monasteries themselves, to their Sacristies, or to the Roman Church.

Since by this article only those usurping and sequestering, etc., appear expressly to be subjected to this excommunication, it was doubted whether someone who purchases the aforesaid things from a usurper incurs the same excommunication. But that it is indeed incurred is settled law from the Allocution of Pius IX, 25 July 1873. Add the reply of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 8 July 1874: It must by no means be doubted that those purchasing ecclesiastical goods usurped by usurpers fall into the excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff. For, setting aside the question whether the aforesaid purchase is in some manner touched by article XI of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, it can be doubtful to no one that it is comprehended by the most clear disposition of chapter XI, On Reformation, session 22 of the Council of Trent.

The replies of the Sacred Penitentiary concerning those who in any manner retain ecclesiastical goods of this kind, see below from no. 1092 in the Appendix.

²⁶ This excommunication pertains to the defense and protection of the temporal Dominion belonging to the Apostolic See. Therefore, rights and jurisdiction here are taken as temporal, and jurisdiction is understood as supreme, that is, that which belongs to the Prince alone, such as the right of life and death, the right of imposing taxes, creating Magistrates, etc.

But this excommunication is incurred: 1. by those who destroy cities, lands, places, etc., and those who invade them by employing force; 2. by those who disturb the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in them, for example, those who impede Him from promulgating laws in these cities, imposing taxes, etc.; 3. by those who retain this jurisdiction or the cities, etc., even if they received them from others, such as heirs and heirs of heirs. 4. Finally, by those who furnish aid, counsel, or favor toward any of the aforesaid acts.

And as regards these last, it is a difficult matter, as the Rieti Commentary well says, to define when they incur excommunication by reason of aid, favor, etc., in detaining. A twofold kind of these (it says) must be distinguished. The one is of those who hold some public office; the other, of those who exercise none. And as regards the former, public offices pertain either to the necessities or utilities of the citizens, or to preserving the government, or to both. It can indeed be harmless to undertake the former, because society cannot kill itself.

But two things above the rest must be observed: 1. that they do not take an oath by which active obedience, as they say, is promised to the usurper, which would be as the price of the office. And if it is altogether necessary to swear, let them promise only passive obedience, and obedience to laws both divine and ecclesiastical, as was enjoined through the Letter of Pius VII to the Bishops of the Marches, 30 August 1808, and by the Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860, replies 10 and 14.

2. That while they swear, they openly profess that they will do nothing contrary to divine and ecclesiastical laws. Wherefore, if something contrary to these laws should have to be done, it is necessary either to abstain from it or to renounce the office.

But with respect to public duties which do not pertain merely to the utilities and necessities of citizens but to preserving the government, the Sacred Penitentiary had already replied on 10 October 1860 (reply 11) that they can be tolerated, provided that there is no question of offices which directly and proximately contribute to the spoliation or to the maintenance of that same spoliation, and which cannot be exercised without danger of violating divine and ecclesiastical laws. But those who hold the first or supreme magistracy in any province, city, land, or town are understood to contribute by office to the maintenance of the spoliation. Thus the Instruction of Pius VII, 22 May 1809, declares: It is not lawful to accept employments and charges which have a more or less direct tendency to recognize, assist, and consolidate the new government in the exercise of the usurped power. But what duties are of this kind is declared more expressly thus in the Instruction of 10 June 1809: It is declared that by such employments are understood especially the offices of Governors, Prefects, or Mayors, who under this or another designation represent the first magistrate in each province, city, land, castle, or country whatever.

But departure from this policy began after it left no hope of impeding the consolidation of the usurpation, and otherwise the office of governing, committed and permitted only to rebels and wicked men, finally produced this sole fruit: that a policy of this kind turned to the destruction of Religion and to ever worse harms of subjects. And indeed, where an unjust usurper permits the oppressed subjects of another to provide in some manner for themselves and the common good, no reason at all appears why either the legitimate prince ought to be considered unwilling, for he would not reasonably be unwilling, or why oppressed subjects ought to be considered free of fault if they refuse offices through negligence. For they will not act thus as though they recognize some right in the most unjust usurper, but as persons who use the law of nature to provide for themselves and society. See the things said in volume I, no. 394, in the Note.

These things concern those holding public duties. But with respect to those who perform no office of this kind, those are understood to favor those detaining who furnish proximate assistance so that the usurpers remain in possession, for example, through money, denunciations, counsels, writings, etc.

Avanzini writes (Commentary, no. 19) that, if this article of the Constitution is compared with article XII of the Bull Coenae, it appears that adherents, supporters, and their defenders have been removed; concerning which matter he nevertheless subjoins that the Apostolic Letters of the year 1860 still remain in force. But unless by adherents you understand, as some are accustomed, those who merely stand for the usurpers, and by defenders those who contribute nothing to the maintenance of the spoliation, you certainly have these also sufficiently comprehended among those who furnish aid or favor.

973. • XIII. From the Bull Romanus Pontifex of Pius IX, 28 August 1873, there is added an excommunication likewise reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff against dignitaries and canons (add: and those who, when chapters are lacking, have power to appoint the administrator or Vicar of a vacant Church, or who legitimately administer vacant Churches), > who, before the exhibition of the Apostolic Letters, have dared, under any title, name, or specious pretext, to grant and transfer the care, governance, and administration of a vacant Church either to one elected, even legitimately, by Chapters as Bishop, or to one nominated or presented, even legitimately, by the lay power to the said vacant Church; then also those who, having been nominated and presented to vacant churches, dare to undertake their care, governance, and administration from the concession and transfer made to them by dignitaries, Canons, and others of whom above; and also those who have obeyed the aforesaid persons or furnished aid, counsel, or favor, of whatever state, condition, preeminence, and dignity they may be ²⁷.

²⁷ ** All who are subjected to the aforesaid excommunication are punished also with another penalty in the same Bull thus: And We bind them also with the penalties, likewise to be incurred by that very fact, of deprivation of the ecclesiastical fruits of any Benefices whatever and of other ecclesiastical revenues respectively obtained by them, and decree and declare that they shall be bound; and We reserve the relaxation of those penalties... ONLY IN A SPECIAL MANNER to Ourselves and to the Roman Pontiff for the time being.

Furthermore, with respect to those elected or presented in this manner, it is added: Moreover, We decree that those nominated and presented are by that very fact deprived of the right which perhaps was acquired for them through nomination and presentation. And below: Furthermore, We declare and decree by the tenor of the present Letters that whatever things are done, commanded, decreed, and ordained by those thus nominated and presented, intruded into the administration of vacant Churches, together with each and every thing in any manner following therefrom and in any manner to follow, are and shall perpetually be null, invalid, empty, void, damnably attempted and presumed in fact by those not having power, and of no value, moment, or efficacy; and We condemn and reprobate them.

The interdict which is added against those nominated, etc., if they are marked with the episcopal character, will be set forth below in its place.

XIV. Likewise: Whoever in the aforementioned dioceses (namely, those subject to the Patriarchate of Venice and the Metropolitan See of Milan), having been elected by the vote of the people to the office of Pastor or Vicar, dare to seize the pretended possession either of the Church or of its rights and goods, and to perform the duties of the ecclesiastical ministry, by that very fact incur major excommunication peculiarly reserved to the Holy See, and other canonical penalties. See the Encyclical Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 21 November 1873 ²⁸.

²⁸ ** In the same place these things follow: And let all those same persons (namely, the intruded) be avoided by the faithful according to the divine warning, as strangers or thieves, who come only to steal, slaughter, and destroy.

But what these things mean can be learned from those which, under Pius VI, had to be observed by prescription with respect to intruded persons in France. They are as follows:

1. It is not licit to approach an intruded pastor for the administration of baptism except in a case of extreme necessity, namely, if there is no other person capable of baptizing; nor is it licit to perform the office of sponsor if perhaps the intruded person baptizes.

2. It is not licit, even on feast days, to be present at the Mass of an intruded priest, even if another Mass is lacking; nor is it licit to be present at a sermon or other functions of the intruded person, or to ask other ministries from him, or to entrust a Mass to him to celebrate.

3. It is not licit to receive Communion from an intruded person, even when the Paschal season is pressing.

4. Although one must genuflect before Hosts consecrated by an intruded person, care must nevertheless be taken, lest in this worship Catholics appear to communicate with schismatics, that an encounter with the intruded person be avoided while he carries the Holy Eucharist. And it is licit for a Catholic priest, even if not fasting, to consume hosts consecrated by a Catholic, if they cannot be reverently preserved, lest they come into the hands of the intruded person.

5. It is not licit to approach an intruded Pastor for contracting matrimony; wherefore, if no other means is available and the superior cannot provide another Pastor or priest, the faithful ought to contract without the presence of a pastor.

6. It is not licit for women, after completing childbirth, to receive from an intruded person the blessing which is customarily given after childbirth.

7. The obsequies of the dead are to be celebrated by the legitimate pastor even in private houses, if they cannot be performed otherwise; but if the intruded person carries the body to the Church, let Catholics neither accompany the funeral nor recite sacred prayers nor perform other rites of the Church in association with him.

8. But whether in danger of death the faithful can licitly receive absolution from an intruded Pastor, it was replied: The course which certain Prelates of France entered upon is not to be disapproved, who, in that moment, permitted the sacrament of penance... when any other Catholic priest was lacking and scandal had been removed, to be received from intruded pastors in that necessity.

But it must be noted here that the Censure and Decree of which there is now question indeed pertain to the ecclesiastical provinces of Venice and Milan; but it must not be thought that persons intruded into parishes in this manner elsewhere are by no means subject to these penalties. For neither will these escape the excommunication set forth above in article XI. For either a legitimate pastor is supposed already to have been given to the parish, and thus we have on the part of the intruded person a usurpation of jurisdiction belonging to another by reason of a benefice; or we suppose that a legitimate pastor has not yet been given, and thus we have the jurisdiction of the Ordinary over the same parish violated. Therefore, the special Decree for the said Provinces can be regarded as a mere consequence or application of article XI.

974. • In the same Constitution these things are subjoined: We declare that absolution from all the excommunications enumerated up to this point is and remains reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff for the time being, and that for it a general concession of absolving from cases and censures or excommunications reserved to the Roman Pontiff in no manner suffices; any indults whatever granted in any form and to any persons, even Regulars of any Order, Congregation, Society, and Institute, even those worthy of special mention and constituted in any dignity, being revoked in addition with respect to those same excommunications ²⁹. But those presuming to absolve > without due faculty, even under any pretext, are to know themselves bound by a bond of excommunication > reserved to the Roman Pontiff ³⁰, provided that there is no question of the point of death, in which nevertheless the obligation, with respect to those absolved, of standing by the mandates of the Church if they recover remains firm ³¹.

²⁹ ** On account of those derogatory clauses a doubt had arisen whether all faculties, whether ordinary, namely, those customarily granted, or extraordinary, granted by the Apostolic See before the promulgation of the same Constitution, had been diminished or taken away by this Constitution, for example, the faculty of absolving from the crime of heresy which was contained in the Pagella of the Sacred Penitentiary. But by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff it was declared through the Office of the Sacred Inquisition as follows: Through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis the Most Holy Father in no way intends to inflict even the least detriment upon faculties of whatever kind which were granted by the Holy See before the promulgation of the same Constitution, whether they are quinquennial or extraordinary or regard the present Jubilee; and he wills that they remain in their full force while the time defined in the said concessions or indults endures.

See above, no. 175, and the things noted there; concerning which the Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary, 5 December 1873, must not be omitted. Namely, to the doubt, Whether Regular Prelates, after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, enjoy the same privileges which they did before, that is, whether or not they can absolve their subjects from papal cases simply reserved in the said Bull, this reply was made: The Sacred Penitentiary replies to the proposed doubt: Negatively, saving other faculties which proceed from particular Rescripts granted for a time.

But from this a question could be raised whether through these things something must be said to have been detracted from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, confirmed by Pontifical authority, which elsewhere (above, page 114, in the Note) we reported in these words: The Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, after the matter had been spoken of with the Most Holy Clement VIII, ABSOLUTELY DECREED that all Bulls and Decrees derogating from the Privileges of Regulars with respect to the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to the Pope are to be understood only in relation to secular persons, but not in relation to their Regular subjects.

And, saving indeed a better judgment, it seems that it must be answered that these things can be reconciled together very well. For, besides the fact that what belongs to Bishops from chapter Liceat also belongs to Regular Prelates, see above, no. 175, the doubt proposed to the Sacred Penitentiary treats of Privileges properly so called. But what is established in the aforesaid Decree ought to be called not so much a Privilege as a certain provident disposition which, by a certain general norm, applies the principles of the common law to the condition and state of Regulars. For it is very well known both from the nature of the matter and from the consensus of all the Doctors that Regulars are numbered among those who are considered to have a perpetual impediment preventing them from being free and unimpeded to approach the Apostolic See personally for absolution from censures. But in these circumstances it is settled law that the faculty of absolving devolves upon the Ordinary, so that he can both absolve by himself and also through another, because this faculty belongs to him by ordinary law, and therefore he can delegate it to another. Thus in chapter Nuper 29, On the Sentence of Excommunication: We grant... that he may be absolved by his Bishop or his own Priest. But no one is ignorant that the Ordinaries of exempt Regulars are none other than their Prelates. Therefore the faculty is given to the Prelates of Regulars to absolve their subjects in the case, not by force of some special privilege, but by a norm taken from the common law. Nevertheless, this norm has a certain appearance of a privilege, insofar as, to remove all doubts for the future, the Apostolic See through the organ of the Sacred Congregation established this canon generally for Regulars. And indeed, what is worthy of note is that a Declaration or Decree of this kind appeared at the time when the same Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, by the Mandate and Authority of the same Clement VIII, under penalty of excommunication, deprivation of offices, and incapacity for hearing confessions, etc., had forbidden all Regulars to presume to absolve from cases reserved or to be reserved in any manner to the Apostolic See. For His Holiness (it is added in that decree) insofar as there is need, has willed and wills that the faculties and concessions themselves in this part are henceforth to be held as utterly null and void. Therefore, by this very fact the Sacred Congregation most manifestly declared that that disposition concerning Regulars pertained in no way to that privilege properly so called of absolving from Papal cases which Clement VIII, by that Decree of 9 January 1601, no less than Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, willed to be annulled, rendered void, and taken away. Therefore, the reply of the Sacred Penitentiary, which regards the privileges of which there is discussion in the proposed doubt, contradicts or detracts nothing from the Decree which, at the command of Clement VIII, established that special canon for the singular condition of Regulars.

³⁰ ** You have, therefore, another excommunication simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff, and accordingly to be added to the following catalogue.

³¹ ** These persons, therefore, will have to present themselves in order to receive mandates, unless nevertheless these are already known and enjoined, for example, those which were prescribed by the Sacred Penitentiary to those who purchased ecclesiastical goods from a usurper, concerning whom in article XI.

975. • I. Those teaching or defending, whether publicly or privately, propositions condemned by the Apostolic See under penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication ³²; likewise those teaching or defending as licit the practice of inquiring from a penitent the name of an accomplice, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV in the Constitutions Suprema, > 7 July 1745; Ubi primum, 2 July 1746; Ad eradicandum, 28 September 1746 ³³.

II. Those who, at the instigation of the devil, lay violent hands upon Clerics or monks of either sex ³⁴, excepting, with respect to the reservation, the cases and persons concerning whom it is permitted by law or privilege that the Bishop or another absolve ³⁵.

III. Those perpetrating a duel, or simply challenging another to it, or accepting it, and any accomplices, or those furnishing any assistance or favor, and also those deliberately watching it, and those permitting it or, so far as it is in their power, not prohibiting it, of whatever dignity they may be, even royal or imperial ³⁶.

³² ** The propositions which it is forbidden by the Apostolic See to teach or defend under penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication are commonly enumerated as follows:

1. The 45 Articles of John Wycliffe and the 30 Articles of John Hus. From the Constitution In eminentis Apostolicae, etc., of Martin V, dated at Rome, 13 February 1450. (See volume I, page XXXV.)

2. The 41 Errors of Martin Luther, condemned by Leo X in the Bull Exsurge Domine, etc., 16 May 1520. (Above, volume I, page XL.)

3. The 79 Propositions of Michael Baius, condemned by St. Pius V in the Bull Ex omnibus, 1 October 1567, etc. (Above, volume I, page XLIII.)

4. The Proposition concerning sacramental confession and absolution to be obtained by letters. Clement VIII, through the Decree of the Sacred Inquisition, 20 July 1602. (Above, volume I, page XLVIII.)

5. The 45 Propositions condemned by Alexander VII through Decrees of the Sacred Inquisition, 24 September 1665 and 18 March 1666. (Above, volume I, page L.)

6. The 65 Propositions condemned by Innocent XI through the Decree of the Sacred Inquisition, 2 March 1679. (Above, volume I, page LIII.)

7. The 68 Propositions of Michael de Molinos, condemned by Innocent XI in the Constitution Caelestis Pastor, 20 November 1687. (Above, volume I, page LVIII.)

8. The 2 Propositions condemned by Alexander VIII, 24 August 1690. (Above, volume I, page LXIV.)

9. The 31 Propositions condemned by Alexander VIII through the Decree of the Sacred Inquisition, 7 December 1690. (Above, volume I, page LXIV.)

10. The 101 Propositions of Pasquier Quesnel, condemned by Clement XI in the Constitution Unigenitus, 8 September 1713. (Above, volume I, page LXVI.)

11. The 5 Propositions On the Duel, condemned by Benedict XIV in the Constitution Detestabilem, 10 November 1752. (Above, volume I, page LXIX.)

12. The 85 Propositions of the diocesan Synod of Pistoia, condemned by Pius VI in the Constitution Auctorem fidei, 28 August 1794. (Above, volume I, page LXXV.)

³³ ** See the things given above concerning this argument, no. 501.

³⁴ ** Since this privilege, which is customarily called the privilege of the canon, is in favor not of persons but of the Order, it is taken most widely. Therefore, under the name of Clerics are included whoever have received tonsure; but under the designation of Monks, all Regulars of either sex, and their Novices and Tertiaries, indeed also Hermits who by mandate of the Bishop are assigned to the custody and service of some Church or chapel.

A violent laying on of hands is understood whenever injury is done by deeds to a person, namely, by harming either his body, liberty, or dignity; the body indeed by striking, wounding, or even harming by poison, or by in any way causing him to fall, tumble headlong, etc.; liberty, as if you thrust him into a prison or another place, even a private one; dignity, if force is in any manner employed against him, as, for example, by stopping the carriage or horse on which he is being conveyed, by violently taking something from him, such as a hat, purse, or staff; or by committing some other insulting act against him, for example, if you soil him with spittle, mud, or dust, or tear the clothes which he is wearing, etc.

All, even those who have not reached puberty, are subject to this excommunication. Nevertheless, a cleric who lays hands upon himself does not incur it (St. Alphonsus, book 7, no. 274); nor, on account of a defect of full advertence, does one who strikes from sudden anger or in jest, or for the sake of correction or defense, or for some other just cause, as if he finds him acting shamefully with his daughter, sister, etc. Indeed, as can deservedly be held, neither do those commanding or ratifying it incur the censure, since the law, which expressed others (see article V among the excommunications reserved in a special manner), passes over these here.

³⁵ ** Namely, if the striking was light, the Bishop can absolve the striker, whoever he may be. But a striking is called light which indeed inflicts grave injury but without grave harm, for example, one done with a fist, foot, stone, or club. But if the striking was grave, the Bishop can absolve only those who live collegiately, from chapter 50, On the Sentence of Excommunication; but it is held as grave, besides the fact that it must also be estimated from the place, the person, and other circumstances, from the Extravagant Perlectis of John XXII, if, for example, a tooth is knocked out or an abundance of blood is shed. Finally, if the striking was enormous, such as mutilation, the gouging out of an eye, the severing of a member, etc., the Bishop can absolve only those who have not reached puberty, whether they seek absolution before or after puberty, from chapter 60, On the Sentence of Excommunication. But in doubt whether the striking was light, grave, or enormous, according to the cited Extravagant the graver classification must be maintained.

But as to what Regular Prelates can do by common law concerning their subjects, compare the things brought forward above from St. Alphonsus in the Note to no. 175.

³⁶ ** With the Rieti Commentary, note that for the character of a duel of this kind it is required that the combat be fought with lethal weapons; and therefore it does not pertain here if there is fighting with fists, sticks, or even iron with a blunted edge, although death follows accidentally. Nor is this contrary to the Constitution Illius vices of Clement VIII. at no. 405, page 388, volume I; because, namely, in this place also St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 220) refers to those things which he had written (book 3, no. 400), namely, that after those five Propositions on the Duel were condemned by Benedict XIV, that opinion which asserts that a Duel can licitly be accepted for the necessary defense of goods of great importance cannot be held as probable. St. Alphonsus indeed attributes this opinion to Lessius, Sanchez, Palao, Coninck, Valentia, Holzmann, Pichler, Reiffenstuel, Sporer, Albel, and others, and adds that it is called probable by Croix and Roncaglia. Indeed, it would certainly be licit for these Authors to add even the vote of St. Alphonsus himself; for he held the same doctrine altogether approved when he wrote these things (Note 1 of the Author on article 3, doubt 4, chapter 2, book 7, edition of the year 1748): It must be noted that a duel can sometimes be justified by just causes, for example, to avoid a loss of goods which the other challenger threatens; nevertheless the loss ought to be certain, and it ought to be impossible to meet it by another way unless the duel is accepted. And indeed, since St. Alphonsus afterward departed from this doctrine for no other cause than because he thought that it had been condemned by Benedict XIV, as he himself thus testifies concerning himself (Catalogue of Reformed Propositions, no. 97), therefore, when it can prudently be considered that this condemnation is not sufficiently established, nothing now prevents us from numbering the Holy Doctor among the patrons of that opinion.

But this is the argument of that Note to no. 405, volume I; there, namely, it is demonstrated that the falsity of the aforesaid opinion can by no means be logically deduced from the aforesaid condemned Propositions. For otherwise that opinion is by no means defended in the same Note by any positive reason; but, from a weighing of the Propositions proscribed by Benedict XIV, this alone was inferred: It must therefore be concluded that it is indeed lawful for anyone to seek reasons by which he may attack that opinion and whatever probability it has; but reasons of this kind must plainly be sought elsewhere than from those proscribed propositions.

And this plainly is what greatly displeases the VV. Wherefore, through fourteen columns (pages 879-885) they labor to establish that that doctrine was truly condemned in the aforesaid propositions. Nor indeed do they hesitate to write thus concerning those things which we said in the Note to no. 405: Father Ballerini appears to deceive himself. For even by observing the rules which he himself hands down for rightly converting condemned propositions, it is clearly gathered from the same propositions that the acceptance of a duel for preserving one's fortunes with honor is condemned.

Again, therefore, a few things concerning this argument. Concerning this matter I would note that it by no means appears why the VV. write, even by observing the rules which he himself (Father Ballerini) hands down, etc., as though Father Ballerini had brought forth here some singular and less well-established rules. For does any rule concerning condemned Propositions exist or can one be devised other than that which all have always admitted, namely, that nothing can certainly be forced from them except that the contradictory of that proposition which was condemned as false must be held as true? The contradictory, I say, but not the contrary, since two contrary propositions indeed cannot both be true, but certainly can both be false. Or can other rules for finding the contradictory of some proposition be produced than those which are everywhere extant in the first elements of dialectic?

Let us therefore come to the matter. The VV., after St. Alphonsus, object with the first and fourth of those five propositions. But the first reads thus: A military man who, unless he offers OR accepts (both in St. Alphonsus and in Gury and the VV. it is read incorrectly, AND accepts) a Duel, would be regarded as fearful, timid, abject, and unfit for military duties, and would therefore be deprived of the office by which he supports himself and his family, or would have to lack perpetually the hope of a promotion otherwise

due and merited by him, would be free from fault and penalty, whether he offers or accepts the duel.

But concerning this the VV. write thus (page 881): The contradictory of the first condemned Proposition can be no other than the following: "A military man who, unless he offers and accepts a duel... would be deprived of the office by which he supports himself and his family,... would not be free from fault and penalty, whether he offers or accepts the duel"; and they add: Surely nothing clearer could be desired.

Yet this is by no means the contradictory of the preceding proposition, but its contrary. For, as the dialecticians teach, the distinction is this: in contradictories, one affirms or denies only as much as suffices for the other to be false; and therefore both can never be true, nor can both be false at the same time. But in contraries, one denies or affirms more than is necessary for the other to be false; whence it happens that both indeed cannot be true at the same time, but both can be false. Yet in this case we have the latter, not the former.

For let the Proposition be reduced to this simpler form: A military man... is free from fault and penalty, whether he offers or accepts a duel. Here take care to observe that the words whether he offers or accepts a duel are expressed not disjunctively but copulatively, just as if one were to say: he is free from fault both if he offers and if he accepts a duel. Hence it follows that, if with the VV. you say, he is not free from fault both if he offers and if he accepts a duel, you now deny more than is necessary for the other proposition to be false; and therefore both can be false, namely, when he would be free from fault if he accepts, but not if he offers, or vice versa. You will have the contradictory only if you say: Either he is not free from fault if he offers, or he is not free from fault if he accepts. Which part of this disjunction is then true must be determined from elsewhere, and not by force of the proposition itself. It is therefore evident that, by force of the condemned Proposition, it cannot be concluded that both cases are subject to fault and penalty.

Say the same of the other Proposition which the VV., following St. Alphonsus, press: It is licit in the natural state of man to accept and offer a duel in order to preserve one's fortunes with honor, when their loss cannot be warded off by another remedy.

Concerning this the VV. write thus (page 882): The other proposition sounds contradictorily thus: "It is not licit... to accept and offer a duel in order to preserve one's fortunes with honor." Yet this is opposed to the condemned proposition not contradictorily but contrarily, and can be false just as much as the opposite proposition, because it denies more than is fitting. If you wish the contradictory, say: Either to offer a duel in order to preserve one's fortunes with honor, or to accept it, is not licit.

Here the VV. add (loc. cit.): If the one accepting is not condemned because the proposition is copulative, for the same reason neither can the one offering be condemned; therefore, in the condemned proposition neither is certainly condemned: which is absurd.

But to these things it must be answered: I concede the whole, except that this must be called absurd. And indeed, if someone should say: Peter and Paul were crucified at Rome, its contradictory will not be, Neither Peter nor Paul was crucified at Rome, but the disjunctive: Either Peter or Paul was not crucified at Rome. But is that said absurdly because, by force of the proposition, it remains uncertain which of them was, or was not, crucified? This must be gathered from elsewhere, as we have said, and not by force of the contradictory proposition. And this indeed is also recommended by those things which the VV. themselves bring forward thus from Reuter: Since a condemned proposition can bear either a universal or a particular sense, while a composite proposition can bear either a copulative or a divided sense, in order that it may be understood in what sense it was condemned and which contradictory opposed to it is true, one must consider both the matter which is proscribed and the weight of the reasons on account of which it deserved to be proscribed, as well as the mind of those who taught that proposition, and finally the common sense of the Doctors.

Take careful note of those words: which contradictory opposed to it IS

TRUE; for several contradictories are disjunctively opposed to a complex proposition, as is evident from the one aforesaid: either he is not free from fault and penalty while he offers, or he is not free from fault and penalty while he accepts. Which of these is true, Reuter rightly says must be argued from the matter, from the weight of the reasons, from the sense of the Doctors, etc.

And that recourse must finally be had to this is manifestly evident from innumerable other examples concerning condemned theses. Let there be, for example, proposition 36 among those proscribed by Innocent XI: It is permitted to steal not only in extreme necessity but also in grave necessity; which, as regards its form, is certainly equivalent to this other: It is licit not only to accept but also to offer a duel. All agree that something false and condemnable lies within it. But without an inspection of the matter or of the sense of the Doctors, what at length will you extract? This one thing, namely, which the contradictory presents: that it is not permitted to steal either in extreme necessity, or in grave necessity, or in both cases. But behold Doctors disagreeing as to whether that thesis is to be understood of formal theft, or merely of the material taking of another's thing, so that to steal there is the same as to carry off another's property. I ask, therefore: can this controversy be determined from the mere inspection of the thesis in itself? Or shall we on that account cry out with the VV. that it is absurd that nothing certain is gathered from the condemned Proposition?

Again, if you understand formal theft there as an unjust taking, unless you recur to a consideration of the matter, will you be able, from the contradictory thesis inspected in itself, to determine whether all the members of the disjunction, or only one of them, and which one, is to be judged true?

And again, if with Viva and St. Alphonsus you take that to steal not for formal theft but for a material taking, do you find it thus determined in that condemnation which member of the contradictory thesis is certainly to be held true and which false? Finally, do we not determine solely from an inspection of the matter, from the force of the reasons, and from the sense of the Doctors, what is true and what is false? And, what is chief, is not the rule which St. Alphonsus provides shown, from the interpretation of this thesis, to be deficient and fallacious, the rule by which the VV. contended that the propositions concerning the duel, as we saw above, ought to be converted? Indeed, according to the rule by force of which they convert the first proposition thus: he is not free from fault and penalty, whether he offers or accepts a duel; and the fourth thus: it is not licit to accept and offer a duel, etc.; according to this rule, I say, the aforesaid proposition 36 would also have to be converted thus: it is not permitted to carry off another's thing either in extreme necessity or in grave necessity. Yet St. Alphonsus (book 3, no. 520) indeed says that by this proposition it is condemned that it is licit to carry off another's things in grave necessity alone; but he acknowledges, with the consensus of all, that it is licit to carry off another's property in extreme necessity. Therefore the rule proposed by the VV. is fallacious; therefore by a fallacious conversion of the propositions premised concerning the duel, the VV. contend that both members of those complex theses must be held as condemned.

Since, therefore, it is not determined by force of conversion upon which member of a proscribed complex proposition the condemnation certainly falls, but in order to argue this it is finally necessary to appeal to the nature of the matter, to the force of the reasons, and to the sense of the Doctors, certainly, if someone should consider that St. Alphonsus too, with many grave Authors, could have agreed with that doctrine that a duel can sometimes be justified by just causes, etc., as we described above, he will plainly be able to deduce a consequence wholly opposite to the consequences which the VV. contend must be elicited from these propositions. Let us, however, be content with that conclusion which in the Note to no. 405 we deduced thus: It must be concluded that it is indeed lawful for anyone to seek reasons by which he may attack that opinion and whatever probability it has; but reasons of this kind must plainly be sought elsewhere than from those proscribed propositions.

To that which the VV. add (pages 882-885), that there have been several after Concina and Patuzzi who understand those condemned propositions in the same sense as St. Alphonsus, let this be the very brief reply: Let the VV. themselves assume the care of investigating whence this has happened; whether, namely, because the cited Authors did not inspect the matter attentively enough, or because, without weighing the matter for themselves, they adopted the opinion of others. For it is certainly not right to have thought them so unskilled in dialectic that they were ignorant either of the mode of arguing from condemned theses or of the mode of finding the contradictory of some Proposition. And these things suffice concerning this question.

The VV. have two other things in the Notes to this question (pages 880, 881), which nevertheless pertain to other arguments. First, therefore (page 880, note 1), they bring forth these words of St. Thomas (2.2, q. 64, art. 5, ad 4): It must be said that, as Augustine says, Samson is not otherwise excused for having overwhelmed himself together with his enemies by the ruin of the house, except that the Holy Spirit, who performed miracles through him, had secretly commanded this. And he assigns the same reason concerning certain holy women who killed themselves in time of persecution, whose memory is celebrated in the Church. From these words the VV. conclude that St. Alphonsus (book 5, no. 367, q. 2) rightly said that St. Thomas disagrees with the Doctors who more commonly hold that it is licit to set fire to a ship or tower so that the enemies may suffer grave harm, but with the certain loss of one's own life. To these things it must be answered that this was rightly observed when it is established that St. Thomas and St. Augustine had turned their eyes to a question of this kind.

The other observation of the VV. concerns these words of St. Alphonsus (book 3, no. 366): It is licit in a shipwreck to yield the plank... even if the plank has already been seized, as Sylvius apud Tournely and the Salamancans teach against Soto, Rodriguez, etc.... But Sylvius rightly observes that he cannot, in order to yield the plank, cast himself into the sea, because no one can positively kill himself. The VV. therefore censure (page 881) that in the Note to no. 391, volume I, page 372, we said that Sylvius's scruple was empty. I reply: In this third edition (loc. cit.) we added the reason why it must be called a scruple and why this limitation of Sylvius cannot be reconciled with the preceding words of St. Alphonsus. We shall add two things here. The first is that St. Alphonsus says that it is licit to yield the plank even if it has been seized, as Sylvius teaches against Soto. But these are the words of Soto (On Justice and Right, book 5, q. 1, art. 6, final proposition): He who relinquished the plank would be in the same position as if he cast himself into the sea, which is directly to kill himself. How then does St. Alphonsus cite Sylvius for himself against Soto, when, as is evident, the doctrine of Soto and Sylvius is the same? Again, St. Alphonsus cites the Salamancans (On Restitution, chapter 2, no. 34) together with Sylvius for his opinion. Yet the Salamancans, when they say that it is licit to give the plank to another, bring forward a reason which overturns the opinion of Sylvius and, in a certain way, even that of St. Alphonsus, namely (they say): This is not to concur directly in death.... It is not to kill oneself, but to commit oneself to a certain danger of death, which one is not bound to avert by so difficult a means as leaving one's neighbor in danger and not helping him. Besides, for an honorable and praiseworthy cause he exposes himself to such danger, which is always licit. When all these things have been weighed, this one consequence results: that paragraph of the Holy Doctor would have been most fortunate if he had left to Tournely, that is, to Collet, that citation of Sylvius which thoroughly disturbs everything there.

In this place the VV. cast their complaints against those things which the reader will find noted concerning the duel

IV. Those giving their names to the Masonic or Carbonari sect, or > other sects of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate > powers, either openly or secretly; and likewise those furnishing to those same > sects any favor whatever; and those not denouncing their secret chiefs and leaders until they have denounced them ³⁷.

³⁷ According to the Constitution of Pius VII (Ecclesiam a Iesu Christo, section 10) and that of Leo XII (Constitution Quo graviora, section 13), under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, all those had to be denounced whom one knew to have given their names to these societies, or to have furnished them assistance, favor, etc., in any manner. But here a limitation is made, so that only those incur this penalty who do not denounce their secret chiefs and leaders.

Moreover, a Confessor must keep two things before his eyes before he indicates to a penitent the obligation of denunciation. The first is that which the Doctors commonly admonish and which Thomas Del Bene expresses in these words (On the Office of the Holy Inquisition, part I, doubt 19, no. 9): You are not bound to denounce on account of fear falling upon a constant man, just as a woman is not bound on account of fear falling upon a constant woman, as if you fear that for this reason you may be killed or maltreated. And again (ibid., doubt 21, no. 1): One is not bound to denounce with probable danger of death, infamy, or grave harm to oneself, or to one's father or mother, or wife, brothers, or others most closely joined by blood.

The other is that which others admonish apud Bonacina (On the Obligation of Denunciation, part I, section 4, no. 3): there is no obligation of denunciation when it is certainly known, or probably believed, that no remedy will be applied by the Prelate after denunciation has been made; for no one is bound to a useless work; or, as Scavini says (treatise 8, disputation 1, chapter 4, article 2, section 1): when there is altogether no hope of punishment; for no one is bound to a useless work; or, as the Decree of the Sacred Inquisition has it (see above in the Note to no. 593, question 5), when it is believed that those denounced can easily escape punishment.

Here it must be observed that, since under the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (above, no. 972, no. II) those reading books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic letters, and those retaining, printing, or defending those same books in any manner, incur an excommunication reserved in a special manner, a question can be raised whether books of sectaries of this kind are comprehended in this class, concerning which Pius VII thus decreed (Constitution Ecclesiam a Iesu Christo, section 11, 13 September 1821): Finally, that every danger of error may be warded off more efficaciously, We condemn and proscribe all catechisms, as they call them, of the Carbonari, and books in which there are described by the Carbonari the things which are customarily done in their assemblies; also their statutes, codes, and all books written in their defense, whether printed or manuscript; and under the same penalty of major excommunication reserved in the same manner, We prohibit any of the faithful from reading or retaining the aforesaid books or any one of them. And it seems that it must be answered that those whose title is designated can sufficiently be considered prohibited by name. But here we have Statutes, Codes, Catechisms, and a Description of acts in the Assemblies, etc. Therefore.

Gury has two questions concerning these sectaries. The first is:

Can those who have given their names to the aforesaid sect be absolved if, although they repent of the oath they took, they nevertheless communicate externally with the same associates?

Reply. Negatively, because it is not enough that someone internally renounce his errors if he appears externally to profess those same errors. This is evident from the reply of the Congregation of the Holy Office. For when this doubt had been proposed: Ecclesiastical penalties have been established by several Roman Pontiffs against those who have given their names to the society which they call that of the Freemasons and have taken an oath to preserve the secret in their little assemblies. The doubt arises whether those who, although they repent of the oath they took, nevertheless persevere in openly exhibiting themselves as true adherents of the same society by communicating with others adhering to the same sect, or by attending their little assemblies, or in any other manner, can lawfully be admitted by a Confessor to participation in the Sacrament of Penance or of the Most Holy Eucharist. Certain Priests are found who in fact admit men of this kind. It is asked: how ought the Confessor to conduct himself?

To this petition the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office replied on 5 July 1837: According to the things set forth, it is not licit.

The other is:

Are those associations to be held as prohibited which profess that they plot nothing against Religion or the civil Commonwealth and nevertheless secretly enter into a compact confirmed by oath?

Reply. Affirmatively. This is established from the Declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary, 21 August 1850. For it replied: Those associations are comprehended in the Pontifical Bulls.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid Declaration, Kenrick contends that associations of workers joining together for their own advantages are licit in themselves, even if signs are employed in them and a secret is maintained. According to this opinion, the workers commonly called Compagnons du Devoir would not incur excommunication, at least certainly, since they chiefly enter into a compact to assist one another. But on account of the secrecy the matter is full of danger.

Meanwhile it is known from the Declaration of the Office of the Sacred Inquisition, 12 January 1870, that the society of the Fenians is comprehended among the condemned sects.

V. Those ordering the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum to be violated with rash audacity, or violating it ³⁸.

³⁸ See below, Appendix On the Enclosure of Monasteries.

VI. Those violating the enclosure of Nuns, of whatever class or condition, sex, or age they may be, by entering their monasteries without legitimate permission; likewise those introducing or admitting them, and also Nuns departing from it outside the cases and form prescribed by St. Pius V in the Constitution Decori ³⁹.

VII. Women violating the enclosure of male Regulars, and superiors or others admitting them ⁴⁰.

VIII. Those guilty of real simony in any benefices whatsoever, and their accomplices ⁴¹.

IX. Those guilty of confidential simony in Benefices of any kind, of whatever dignity they may be.

X. Those guilty of real simony on account of entrance into Religion.

XI. All who, making profit from indulgences and other spiritual graces, are struck with the censure of excommunication by the Constitution Quam plenum of St. Pius V, 2 January 1569 ⁴².

³⁹ Which places enjoy the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum has been said elsewhere (volume I, in the Note to no. 285).

But this immunity is violated: 1. if one who has fled to those places is drawn out thence by force; but otherwise if he has been led out by deceit and fraud, or has departed deceived by false promises; for by the right of asylum provision is made for the sanctity and reverence of the place, not for the persons taking refuge; 2. if others are prohibited from carrying there those things which are necessary for life; 3. finally, if by any device the sacred place is besieged so that one who protects himself there is compelled to surrender himself (Benedict XIV, Constitution Officii nostri, section 14).

Moreover, for excommunication to be incurred there must be rash audacity, namely, when someone, in no way compelled by others, deliberately and knowingly either orders the right of asylum to be violated or violates it by executing the order, as one devoid of every excuse (Sacred Inquisition, 1 February 1871).

⁴⁰ See the same Appendix.

⁴¹ With regard to this and the following two articles, compare the things said concerning Simony in volume I.

⁴² According to this Constitution of St. Pius V, for excommunication to be incurred it is required that someone have made profit by granting or publishing indulgences or other spiritual graces (cited Constitution, sections 1 and 4). But one who orders a list of indulgences to be posted in sacred buildings is also considered to publish (ibid., section 2).

The spiritual graces enumerated by this Constitution are: 1. the faculty of choosing for oneself a priest who may absolve one from reserved cases (ibid., section 1); 2. the sacrifice of the Mass and burial during an interdict (ibid., section 3); 3. the use of prohibited foods (ibid.); 4. the taking of two or more sponsors at sacred baptism contrary to the Decree of the Council of Trent (ibid.); 5. absolution from the guilt of simony reserved to the Apostolic See (ibid.). Moreover, only those inferior to Bishops incur the excommunication (ibid., section 6).

XII. Those collecting alms of greater value for Masses and taking profit from them by causing those Masses to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are customarily of lesser value ⁴³.

⁴³ Although sin can be committed in many ways by reason of shameful profit sought from Mass stipends (see above from no. 367), nevertheless, for this excommunication to be incurred, it is necessary: 1. that in a certain proper sense someone be said to collect Masses, or to devote effort to collecting Masses. But one is not of this kind to whom Masses are entrusted to be celebrated by himself; nor one to whom, apart from the character of a collector, they are spontaneously committed to be celebrated even by others; nor, finally, one who seeks them from only one or another person. Avanzini well says (Commentary, no. 34): It is sufficiently indicated that there is no question of one or a few stipends in number, but of a certain abundant collection to be made in the manner of commerce. 2. That the collection be made of Masses which are customarily called manual; for the word collecting seems to import this, and it is sufficiently gathered from the Constitution Quanta cura of Benedict XIV. 3. That this be done for the sake of gain or profit; wherefore one who deducts a part from the stipends so that it may be expended upon certain pious uses does not incur excommunication, although the Sacred Congregation of the Council disapproved this on 9 September 1874 (above, in the Note to no. 375); nor one who retains some part for himself as compensation for his labor or effort.

Moreover, all indeed agree that the sanction of Benedict XIV, by which only laics were punished with the penalty of excommunication, was extended by this article, because it also comprehends clerics. But a doubt arises whether it was also limited in some respect. Avanzini (loc. cit.) judged it to have been limited because the article does not say in the same place (that is, in the place where the stipends were collected), but in places where Mass stipends are customarily of lesser value. Wherefore Del Vecchio (Compendium of Scavini, treatise 4, no. 611) thinks it more probable that, for the censure to be incurred, the Masses must be celebrated elsewhere, where stipends are customarily of lesser value. Avanzini, however, adds that the opinion of those asserting that the censure is incurred even if the Masses are celebrated where the stipends were collected is not to be disapproved, attention being given, namely, to the identity, if not of the wording, certainly of the rationale, between the Benedictine Constitution and the present article. Cretoni presses this rationale more tenaciously (Note to this article), adding that it is also gathered from those words of the Benedictine Constitution (section 5): Whether in the same place or elsewhere... he caused them to be celebrated.

But whatever this disagreement may be, it makes plain that the matter is somewhat more obscure. Indeed, if the Constitution of Benedict XIV is inspected, the greater stipends are understood (section 5) which customs or synodal statutes require in some place; but the lesser ones (section 1) are those where the alms or stipends, either by custom or by synodal law... are of lesser value, lesser, namely, than custom or a synodal statute requires elsewhere. With these things posited, it is asked: what do those words of the same Constitution (section 5) mean: "Whether in the same place" (where, namely, the greater stipends are given by custom or statute), "or elsewhere, where lesser stipends are given for Masses to be celebrated, he caused them to be celebrated"? Certainly, if the Masses are celebrated in the same place, retention of part of the stipend cannot occur unless either a stipend below the synodal rate is given to another or another is defrauded of the excess from a stipend exceeding the synodal rate. But neither case is easily reconciled with the words of this article XII. Not the former, because the Masses are not celebrated in places where Mass stipends are customarily of lesser value. Not the latter, because a certain abundant collection of stipends exceeding the synodal rate, which is signified in the Article, scarcely can have place. Therefore it is not without cause that it is written in the Rieti Commentary: Nor, finally, does he incur the censure who causes Masses to be celebrated either in the same place in which he collected them or in another where they are celebrated for the same stipend; although one who retains for himself a part of the stipend, unless it is freely given by the recipient, is guilty of theft, whether grave or light according to the quantity of the matter; and a grave quantity is otherwise required for incurring the censure. And this censure indeed is incurred, not when someone collects stipends with this depraved intention, but when, in handing over a stipend for Masses either celebrated or to be celebrated, he retains a part of it for himself.

XIII. All who are punished with excommunication in the Constitutions Admonet nos of St. Pius V, on the fourth day before the Kalends of April 1567; Quae ab hac Sede of Innocent IX, on the day before the Nones of November 1591; Ad Romani Pontificis curam of Clement VIII, 26 June 1592; and Inter caeteras of Alexander VII, on the ninth day before the Kalends of November 1660, which concern the alienation and enfeoffment of Cities and Places of the Holy Roman Church ⁴⁴.

XIV. Religious presuming to administer the sacrament of Extreme Unction or the Eucharist as Viaticum to clerics or laics outside a case of necessity without permission of the pastor ⁴⁵.

⁴⁴ Concerning this article the Rieti Commentary, deducing everything briefly and properly from the cited Constitutions, writes thus: The action which is restrained by this excommunication is to act before the Roman Pontiff concerning the alienation of Cities, Towns, or places belonging either immediately or mediately to the right and ownership of the Holy See, except places confiscated and assigned to the treasury. Nor is one excused under whatever title this may be sought, for example, that of government, Vicariate, fief, census, exchange, etc.; or from whatever cause, even merits toward the Holy See, necessity, or evident utility; or for whatever time, even a long time only, or for life, or only at pleasure.

But the following become subject to this excommunication: 1. those treating, consulting, or otherwise speaking about this matter, and consequently about choosing Orators to the Holy See for this purpose; 2. Orators receiving an office of this kind; 3. finally, any others who by themselves or through another suggest or recommend alienations of this kind to the Roman Pontiff; nor does it matter whether they have acted by voice or in writing. The first indeed incur excommunication as soon as they have proposed Orators, provided these have been elected; the Orators themselves when they have accepted the mandate; and the last when they have spoken with the Roman Pontiff concerning this matter or have offered a writing, even if they have lost their labor and oil.

⁴⁵ Four things are required for contracting this censure. 1. That the sacraments of which the Article speaks be administered without the permission of the pastor. But by pastor here is understood one who has the care of souls there, by whatever name he may be called, or one who acts in his place in this matter. Permission is also understood as merely presumed, that is, if the pastor certainly would have given it, or at least is probably believed to be going to ratify it, or if the pastor gave it to the sick person, although perhaps he would not have given it to the one who in fact administers these sacraments.

2. That those sacraments be administered outside a case of necessity. But a case of necessity must be estimated not only from the danger under which the sick person labors, but also from whether the Pastor can easily be summoned. Therefore the excommunication will not be incurred if either of these is not lacking, even though perhaps you falsely judged both to be lacking, since our judgment does not change the truth of the matter; or even if, conversely, you thought that either one was not lacking, that is, either that necessity was urgent or that the pastor would not be unwilling, although in fact both are lacking. The reason is that one administering thus is not said to presume.

3. That the one administering be a Religious properly so called. Therefore the excommunication ceases if either a secular priest or even one who professes an Institute in which only simple vows are emitted administers the sacraments in this manner. For in penal matters Institutes of this kind are called neither Religious nor Regular.

4. Finally, that the Religious administer those sacraments to Clerics or Laics. Therefore the excommunication ceases if a Regular has administered them to Regulars, even of another Order and outside a Monastery; or even to those who are reckoned as Regulars by law, that is, Novices and servants who actually serve them and live within the enclosure under their obedience; and probably also to their resident pupils (see above, no. 564, and Extracted Acts, etc., volume 3, page 61). Add to these the poor dwelling in the hospitals of Regulars and male Tertiaries who live collegiately or dwell with cloistered Religious.

XV. Those removing relics without legitimate permission from the Sacred Cemeteries or Catacombs of the City of Rome and its territory, and those furnishing them assistance or favor ⁴⁶.

XVI. Those communicating with one excommunicated by name by the Pope in the crimen criminosum, namely, by furnishing him assistance or favor.

XVII. Clerics knowingly and voluntarily communicating in divine things with persons excommunicated by name by the Roman Pontiff and receiving them in the offices ⁴⁷.

⁴⁶ From the Edict of 24 August 1613, by command of Paul V, and the Constitution Ex commissae of Clement X, 13 January 1672. Since in those same crypts (says Avanzini, no. 37), or catacombs, bones and ashes are everywhere found in open niches, concerning which it is now established that they are not the bones and ashes of martyrs but of the faithful who were laid there, one who, while visiting the crypts, takes for himself something from these bones or ashes as a remembrance or for the sake of devotion does not appear to incur the censure. It is otherwise if there is question of relics concerning which it is not yet established whether they are of Martyrs or merely of the faithful.

⁴⁷ By the ancient law, all who had incurred major excommunication, whether imposed ab homine or by law, were to be avoided, with this distinction alone: those whose excommunication was public and notorious were to be avoided publicly; but those whose excommunication was not publicly known were to be avoided only privately by those who were aware of it. See chapter Cum non ab homine 14, On the Sentence of Excommunication.

Then by the new law introduced by Martin V, it was granted that no one was bound to abstain from communion with anyone, whatever censure, whether by law or ab homine, bound him, unless a sentence against a definite person had been specially and expressly published by the judge; or unless it was so notoriously established that someone had incurred the excommunication imposed by the Canon through a sacrilegious laying of hands upon a cleric that the deed could not be concealed by any evasion or excused by any defense.

But on account of communication with one to be avoided, minor excommunication was incurred by the law itself, both if one communicated with him in divine and spiritual things and if in other merely civil matters. Nevertheless, in two cases, not minor but major excommunication was incurred by the law itself for this cause: 1. if a cleric had communicated in divine things with one excommunicated by the Supreme Pontiff, not in any manner whatever, but by admitting him voluntarily, freely, and willingly, while knowing that he was excommunicated by the Pope by name and, in addition, denounced (from chapter Significavit 18, this title; see Schmalzgrueber, book 5, title 39, no. 179); 2. if someone had communicated with one to be avoided in the crimen criminosum, or in the crime on account of which someone was struck with excommunication by name and denounced as such, by furnishing him assistance, counsel, or favor, lest he repent of that crime.

But by the most recent law of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, first, minor excommunication was entirely abolished. Major excommunication nevertheless remains; but it is not incurred except by those who communicate with one excommunicated by name by the Supreme Pontiff, and this only in the two aforesaid cases, namely: 1. according to article XVI, if they communicate in the crimen criminosum with one excommunicated by name by the Supreme Pontiff; and 2. according to article XVII, if Clerics knowingly and voluntarily receive one excommunicated in this manner in divine offices, that is, admit him to the exercise of those offices. To the former, as is evident, both clerics and laics are subject; but to the latter, clerics only. Moreover, by one excommunicated by name by the Pontiff is not understood one who, after he has incurred a papal excommunication, is then denounced by name as excommunicated by any other Ordinary; but one who has been excommunicated by name by the same Pontiff, or one excommunicated by Him who is denounced by name.

XVIII. Those presuming outside the point of death to absolve from excommunications reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, without the due faculty, even under any pretext whatever (Constitution Apostolicae Sedis) ⁴⁸.

XIX. Clerics or laics, in whatever dignity they may shine forth, even imperial or royal, who presume, by themselves or through others, by force or fear inflicted, or even through substituted persons, Clerics or laics, or by any art or under any specious pretext whatever, to convert to their own uses and usurp the jurisdictions, goods, revenues, and rights, even feudal and emphyteutic, the fruits, emoluments, or any proceeds whatever of any Church, or of any secular or regular Benefice, of charitable loan institutions, and of other pious places, which ought to be converted to the necessities of ministers and the poor; or to impede them from being received by those to whom they belong by law. Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 11, On Reformation ⁴⁹.

⁴⁸ In this case are not comprehended those who, according to the Canons, absolve persons legitimately impeded from approaching the Apostolic See even from cases specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff.

⁴⁹ That those withholding tithes or impeding them are not comprehended by this Tridentine sanction is sufficiently gathered from the fact that in session 25, chapter 12, On Reformation, these are said to be excommunicated thus: The Holy Synod commands all, of whatever rank and condition they may be, to whom the payment of tithes pertains, that henceforth they pay in full those which they are bound by law to pay.... But let those who withhold or impede them be excommunicated; nor are they to be absolved from this crime unless full restitution has followed.

Moreover, it is manifest that the purchasers of the ecclesiastical goods of which there is question also fall under this censure: both because (as Avanzini rightly says, no. 62) purchasers convert goods of this kind to their own uses by usurping them under the guise of a contract, although they know that the usurper is neither their owner nor legitimate administrator, and finally that the goods are stolen and cry out for their owner; and because this point of law was defined by the Allocution of 25 July 1873, in which this Decree of Trent is also brought forward.

Avanzini judged (Commentary, page LVIII) that the excommunication imposed upon Missionaries engaging in commerce, etc., should be referred to this place. But this will be treated more conveniently below, where there is discussion of excommunications reserved to no one.

1. Frigerius, for the sake of curiosity, frequents the temples of heretics and assists at their assemblies and offices, together with other Protestants. He himself, however, is internally altogether Catholic.

It is asked: Whether Frigerius incurs excommunication?

R. First, Frigerius does not act rightly and sins. For although to go to the temples of Protestants, for the mere sake of curiosity, without any communication in sacred things, is an act indifferent in itself, and Frigerius does not internally adhere to heresy, nevertheless frequently to go to the temples of Protestants is not without scandal, nor is it without some favor toward heresy and heretics. Besides, since, by frequently going even to the temples of heretics, he is present at their assemblies and offices, there can practically be no doubt that communication in sacred things is had, nor without scandal, since Frigerius is a Catholic and is certainly regarded as such, and wishes to be regarded as such, by the very fact that internally he does not adhere to the errors of heresy. Hence certainly he cannot be excused from excommunication because of favor. This is openly confirmed from the Instruction of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar for parish priests and confessors of Rome. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 365, 367, and Commentar. in Const. Apostolicae Sedis, ed. 5, n. 9 seqq.

2. Petrus possesses an old and spacious house in Rome in the square called Navona. The Methodist Protestants would like to buy it, so that there they may open a public school and boarding house for boys and girls. Moreover that sale would be altogether useful to Petrus; nevertheless he does not wish at all to complete it before he is certain of its liceity.

It is asked: 1.º What is cooperation in sin, and is it licit? - 2.º Whether Petrus licitly sells the house in the Case? - 3.º Insofar as the response to the second is negative, whether he also incurs excommunication?

R. To the 1st. Cooperation in sin is to concur by some work in the sin of another. As it is illicit to sin, so also it is illicit to cooperate by direct will in sin; and then the cooperation is called formal. But if the cooperation is not toward the sin, but toward some other work which is ordered by the sinner to the sin, the cooperation is material, and consequently in itself is not illicit. But from the circumstances its liceity or illiceity in the concrete is to be defined.

To the 2nd. Negatively. For there is a sufficiently proximate cooperation, the circumstances considered, toward public harm, through the instruction of boys and girls in Protestantism, especially since the place is very favorable for a school and boarding house of this sort for attracting several families and for gathering boys and girls in no small number. Besides, public scandal is present, namely if it becomes known that a Roman and a Catholic sold a house in Rome to Protestants in the most principal square of the City, so that there a school and boarding house of Protestants might be established.

To the 3rd. Affirmatively. For there seems no doubt that such a deed, by itself, would greatly favor heresy and its propagation in the City.

3. Cornelius, a Catholic, receives several heretical newspapers to which he is subscribed, and reads them only occasionally.

It is asked: Whether Cornelius incurs excommunication?

R. There is no doubt, speaking in itself, that it is a grave sin to read newspapers of this sort by natural law itself, on account of the grave danger of falling away from the faith. Moreover, the reading of them is positively prohibited by the General Decree of the Constitution Officiorum of Leo XIII, VIII Kal. Febr. 1896, Cap. VIII, n. 21. But as regards excommunication, the following Decision is had of the Holy Office, Apr. 21, 1880: "Whether those knowingly reading newspapers which champion heresy incur the excommunication of the second article of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, reserved in a special mode to the Supreme Pontiff? R. Negatively." But although Cornelius, because of the reading and because of the retention of these newspapers, does not incur the aforesaid excommunication, he does indeed incur it because of favor, by reason of the subscription.

1169. I. "All apostates from the Christian faith, and all and individual heretics or schismatics."⁶

⁶ Code, c. 2314, § 1.

Moreover, "if they have given their name to, or publicly adhered to, a non-Catholic sect, they are by the fact itself infamous; and... clerics, after a warning has been sent in vain, are to be degraded."⁷

⁷ Ibid.

But those favoring heresy are not excommunicated by the fact itself, but are suspect of heresy: "He who in any way voluntarily and knowingly helps the propagation of heresy, or who communicates in divine things with heretics... is suspect of heresy."⁸

⁸ Code, c. 2316. Can. 2315 establishes by what penalties one suspect of heresy can be struck, and adds: "If within six months... he has not amended himself, let him be held as a heretic, liable to the penalties of heretics."

The one suspect of heresy does not fall under excommunication unless he is obstinate, below, n. [source gives no number after "n."]

1170. As to the absolution of this censure, let these things be noted:

If the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism has been brought in any way to the external forum of the local Ordinary, even through voluntary confession, the same Ordinary, but not the vicar general without special mandate, can by his ordinary authority in the external forum absolve the one repenting, after abjuration has first been juridically performed and the other things to be observed by law have been observed; but one thus absolved can then be absolved from sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. Abjuration, moreover, is held juridically performed when it is done before the local Ordinary himself or his delegate and at least two witnesses.⁹

⁹ Code, c. 2314, § 2.

But by delegated authority, by force of quinquennial Indult n. 3, bishops could absolve from the sin of heresy even when not brought to the external forum, under certain conditions; but, from the decree of the S. C. Consistorial, April 25, 1918, faculties of this kind have now ceased; therefore unless special Indults are obtained, recourse must be had to the Holy See for individual cases.

In the conversion of heretics, the Instruction of the Holy Office, July 20, 1859 (Collect., 2nd ed., n. 1178), must be kept before the eyes. First inquiry must be made concerning the validity of baptism received in heresy: (a) If it is judged certainly invalid, they must be baptized absolutely: then no abjuration nor absolution will be required; (b) If it was doubtfully valid, 1) let them emit an abjuration or profession of faith; 2) afterward let them be baptized again under condition; 3) finally let them make a sacramental confession, and be absolved conditionally; (c) if certainly valid, only the abjuration or profession of faith is received, which absolution from censures (and from sins) follows. Yet if the newly converted person greatly desires that the rites formerly omitted in his baptism be supplied on this occasion, it is lawful for the priest to satisfy this wish.¹⁰

¹⁰ Cf. other practical questions in Gennari, Cons. Moral., 122.

1171. II. "When a work has been made public, the publishers of books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy, or schism, and likewise those defending the same books or other books prohibited by name through apostolic letters, or knowingly reading or retaining them without due license."¹¹

¹¹ Code, c. 2318.

Here by the name of books are not understood manuscripts, newspapers, journals, periodical publications taken individually, books written by heretics of the first centuries...; true books of apostates and heretics are understood, not indeed if they merely contain heresy, but if they defend heresy; and books written by any author whatever, but condemned by name, with the title of the book expressed, under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, through letters given by the Roman Pontiff himself or in his name. - Those, however, are struck by excommunication who knowingly read, understanding what is written, or retain or publish or defend in any way these books. But those defend books who praise or protect their authors or doctrines precisely insofar as they defend or contain heresy or schism.

Bishops formerly, by force of Indult, had delegated power "of absolving from censures incurred on account of the retention and reading of prohibited books: with a suitable salutary penance imposed; and with the obligation remaining firm of handing over, according to law, either by oneself or through another, without any delay, and, insofar as it can be done, before absolution, the prohibited books which the penitent retains in his power." (Indult. S. Penit., n. 5). Today recourse should be had to the Holy See.

1172. III. "All and individual persons of whatever state, grade, or condition, even if royal, episcopal, or cardinalitial, appealing from laws, decrees, or mandates of the Roman Pontiff existing at the time to a universal Council, are suspect of heresy and by the fact itself contract excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."¹²

¹² Code, c. 2332.

By this excommunication are struck those appealing from any ordinance whatever of the Roman Pontiff as such to a Council, even one present and legitimately gathered, but not to a future Pope; yet in this latter case those appealing with difficulty escape the excommunication brought against heretics and schismatics. - Moreover those appealing are suspect of heresy, and therefore liable to the penalties enumerated in canon 2315.

1173. IV. "Those laying violent hands on the person of a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church or of a Legate of the Roman Pontiff, or of a Patriarch, Archbishop, Bishop, even titular only."¹³

¹³ Code, c. 2343.

1174. V. "Those who publish laws, mandates, or decrees against the freedom or rights of the Church; those who directly or indirectly impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, having recourse for this to any lay power whatever."¹⁴

¹⁴ Code, c. 2334. - In the old text it read "and having recourse for this"; but in the Code "and" is omitted, and therefore only those are excommunicated who in fact impede the exercise of jurisdiction.

This penalty is incurred: 1. by those publishing laws...

a) Those publishing, namely those who participate in some legislative power, or must concur so that some law may obtain the force of law.

b) Those publishing laws properly so called, or mandates or decrees brought for the completion of law or for its practical execution, but not judicial sentences; yet stable ordinances brought by provincial or municipal magistrates, which are equivalent to laws for a province or city, are included.

c) Against the freedom or rights of the Church. By these words is designated not only the exercise of ecclesiastical power, but any right belonging to the Church, such as the right of teaching, the right of conferring benefices, the right of carrying out public supplications, the right of acquiring and possessing, etc.¹⁵

¹⁵ It must be noted that this excommunication, brought against those who published laws or decrees opposed to the freedom or rights of the Church, already flourished from the constitution Apostolicae Sedis. Hence the Deputies and Senators who gave their vote for the French laws against religious associations (July 1, 1901) and concerning the Separation of Church and State (December 9, 1905), even if they gave their vote after the necessary number of voters had been completed, were and remain liable to an excommunication of this kind until absolution; likewise the President of the Republic who promulgated them; the Ministers who published decrees for their execution.

1175. 2. Those impeding the exercise of properly ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by which the faithful are governed unto eternal life:

Namely, those who unjustly, by some coercion, physical or moral, effectively place an obstacle lest someone exercise an act of jurisdiction which he has ready at hand; this indeed is done by those having recourse for this to any lay power, whether supreme, intermediate, or lowest, such as the power of a municipal magistrate; for example, those who oppose the ordinances and decrees of bishops concerning neutral and impious schools, by recurring to any lay authority.

1176. VI. "He who has dared to drag before a lay judge any of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or Legates of the Apostolic See, or major Officials of the Roman Curia concerning business pertaining to their office, or his own Ordinary."¹⁶

¹⁶ Code, c. 2341.

This censure is incurred not only by legislators and other authorities, but also by private persons who summon the aforesaid ecclesiastical persons to the tribunal of laymen and compel them to be present there.

1177. VII. "Those having recourse to the lay power in order to impede any letters or acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from its Legates, and directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution, or on account of them striking or terrifying either those to whom the letters or acts pertain, or others."¹

¹ Code, c. 2333.

Here there is question of any acts whatever, whether of the Roman Pontiff, or of the Sacred Congregations, or of the Legates, Nuncios, or Delegates of the Apostolic See, provided that they have already proceeded.

This excommunication is incurred: 1. by those who effectively have recourse to the lay power in order to impede those acts; 2. by those who directly by edict, or indirectly by deeds, prohibit their promulgation or their execution, even if, notwithstanding the edict, the promulgation is afterward made or the act is put into execution; 3. by those who, on account of them, that is, in order to impede the promulgation or execution of the acts, strike, or terrify by grave threats, either the parties themselves or others joined with the parties.

1178. VIII. "All fabricators or falsifiers of letters, decrees, or rescripts of the Apostolic See, or those knowingly using the same letters, decrees, or rescripts."²

² Code, c. 2360.

Here there is question of official letters, not private ones, not only of the Roman Pontiff, but also of the Roman Congregations. Moreover, these are excommunicated: (a) fabricators, namely those who fashion these documents wholly from the beginning; (b) falsifiers, that is, those who in the same documents change, add, or take away something, so that the sense is changed; but not those who correct errors or mistakes; (c) those using the same letters, and indeed knowingly, that is, with full advertence and liberty, for extorting certain advantages either for themselves or for others.

1179. IX. "Those usurping or detaining by themselves or through others goods or rights pertaining to the Roman Church."³

³ Code, c. 2345.

1180. X. "One not promoted to the priestly order, if he has simulated the celebration of Mass or has heard sacramental confession."⁴

⁴ Code, c. 2322. - Besides, if the one thus acting is a cleric, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be deprived of pension or office, if he has any in the Church, and let him be punished with other penalties.

This excommunication is established by new law.

1181. XI. "If anyone, by himself or through others, has falsely denounced a confessor before Superiors for the crime of solicitation, he incurs by the fact itself excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, from which he can in no case be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation, and has repaired, according to his powers, the damages, if any have followed therefrom, with a grave and lasting penance imposed besides."⁵

⁵ Code, c. 2363.

Moreover, a sin of this kind of calumnious denunciation is, by reason of itself, reserved to the Holy See,⁶ when the denunciation is made or renewed before an ecclesiastical judge.

⁶ Code, c. 894.

Let it be noted: (a) that these are suspect of heresy: 1. those who are united in marriage with an explicit or implicit pact that all or some offspring be educated outside the Catholic Church (can. 2319); 2. parents, or those taking the place of parents, who knowingly hand over children to be educated or instructed in a non-Catholic religion (can. 2319); 3. one who has cast away the consecrated species, or has carried them away or retained them for an evil end (can. 2320); 4. one who, with hardened soul, has remained for a year in the censure of excommunication (can. 2340); 5. those who through simony have knowingly promoted to orders, or have been promoted, or have administered or received other sacraments (can. 2371); 6. "one who in any way voluntarily and knowingly helps the propagation of heresy, or who communicates in divine things with heretics..." (can. 2316);

(b) that these sanctions are decreed against one suspect of heresy: "One suspect of heresy who, after warning, does not remove the cause of suspicion, is to be prohibited from legitimate acts, and a cleric besides, after warning has been repeated in vain, is to be suspended from divine things; but if within six months completed from the contracted penalty one suspect of heresy has not amended himself, let him be held as a heretic, liable to the penalties of heretics." From these last words it appears sufficiently that one suspect of heresy who is so obstinate immediately incurs the excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See. This is confirmed from the analytical-alphabetical Index appended to the Code, under the word Excommunication.

Argument of the chapter

Besides the obligation of conscience, which regards the penitential forum and was weighed by us above in n. 53, 61, the General Decrees are fortified by canonical penalties which are promulgated in the three articles of this chapter.

Moreover, two are latae sententiae, transferred here from the former law; but the third article establishes arbitrary penalties committed to the Bishop.

The clauses of conclusion follow those three articles; these no longer belong to Chapter V.

All and each who knowingly, without the authority of the Apostolic See, read books of apostates and heretics defending heresy, as well as books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters, and who retain, print, and in any way defend the same books, incur by the fact itself an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff.

Former law

125. By this article, in the same words, the Excommunication borne in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, n. 2, of the first series, is repeated. Therefore in itself it will receive a similar interpretation. Hence:

What "knowingly" means

1. Knowingly. By this word the case of any ignorance is excepted, even, probably, affected ignorance. Moreover the word is referred also to those retaining, etc.¹

Reading books. Whether periodic fascicles are books of heretics

2. Reading books, in a notable quantity. Cf. here above n. 57. But who are readers was said in n. 57, 50. Also before, n. 33 and following, we weighed what comes under the name of book, and in what manner periodic publications are to be regarded as books. From this, in order that they be judged to protect heresy as a book, it is required that the periodic publications themselves rather generally stain themselves with this vice.

What apostates are

3. Of apostates. We defined these above as those who entirely cast off the Christian faith externally and internally, whether they pass over to the errors of Mahomet, etc., or simply profess themselves to be perfect "free thinkers." Cf. Avanz., p. 8.

Heretics and a heretical book

4. And of heretics. It is necessary that the heresy be plainly established, either from the heretical sect to which the writer belongs, or, when the book is anonymous, or by an author hitherto Catholic, from manifest doctrine,² and proposed pertinaciously.

Therefore books of this kind are not those which principally belong to a Catholic author, although a heretic has appended scholia, unless these are the greater part of the book; nor those which report some text of heretics "even if you read with the mind of learning heresy." Laym.³ Cf. Piat,⁴ against Arndt.⁵

Nor books of infidels, Jews, schismatics, at least as such.

Nor are books of heretics which pertain to the first centuries of the Church, as now altogether harmless, comprehended here. Lehmkuhl, II, 923. Cf. above n. 66, where we transferred the same rule also to medieval heretics.

To defend heresy

5. Defending heresy. Not merely containing, or briefly defending as if while doing something else, but of set purpose, by bringing forward reasons. But it is not necessary that the subject matter of the book be religious. It is enough that the book defend one heresy in this way.

6. As well as books of any Author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters. This clause requires:

Through Apostolic Letters

a) Apostolic Letters, or letters proceeding immediately from the Supreme Pontiff: a Brief, Bull, Encyclical, etc. Piat, on V. der Velden, p. 623.

Made by name

b) A prohibition made by name, that is, one by which a book is designated by its proper title. Yet a singular designation, for example of the author, is not demanded. Indeed, a generic indication of title seems to suffice. Hence B. P.⁶ judges that the clause is verified in the Constitution Ecclesiam, by which, in 1821, there were prohibited by Pius VII, under excommunication reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, "the catechisms of the Carbonari, the books by which they describe the things which are customarily carried on in their meetings, statutes, codes." But a disposition is not enough by which, for example, Innocent XI condemned all books and writings of Michael Molinos.⁷ Cf. Avanz.-Penn., Appendix III.

It is required that it be made under excommunication reserved to the Holy See

c) A prohibition under excommunication reserved to the Holy See. Thus the common opinion: Avanzini, Lehmkuhl, Bucceroni,⁸ etc. The reason is drawn from the end of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, by which this censure was borne. For Pius IX wished to narrow censures. Therefore it would in no way be likely that under the gravest censure (specially reserved) he prohibited books which his predecessors had condemned without reserved excommunication.⁹ Cf. Avanzini, cited place. Wherefore if, for example, you read without faculty the work of Lamennais, Les paroles d'un croyant, you will have committed no pontifical censure, since the apostolic letters by which it is reprobated contain none. The same is the case with the works of Jacob Frohschammer.

Those which were proscribed under another penalty latae sententiae have now been simply condemned, unless they are heretical and at the same time have defended heresy. Except those which, for the causes indicated elsewhere, have fallen from the Index.

d) Yet it is not necessary that those letters bear the penalty of excommunication specially reserved; otherwise the present clause would effect nothing special. Thus the authors.

e) Finally, the disposition affects future proscriptions equally with past ones.

Therefore in a few words: from article 47, those books which the Supreme Pontiffs formerly proscribed by name through apostolic letters under excommunication latae sententiae reserved to themselves are now prohibited under excommunication specially reserved.

What concerning future proscriptions?

Must it be said in the same way if certain books are hereafter condemned by the Supreme Pontiffs through apostolic letters by name? We think it must be said in the same way.

And Hollweck¹⁰ and Wernz¹¹ judge that in this article no times are distinguished. Nevertheless, since the legislator merely uses the past tense, while he could so easily have said prohibited or to be prohibited, the matter seems uncertain to us.

But if future proscriptions are touched, there is no cause why in these you should require mention of reserved excommunication, unless there is a cause on account of which the Pontiff must be judged to have been unwilling to refer himself to the present article, but to pronounce absolutely concerning the sanction.

What books are touched by this clause?

N.B. Because other apostolic letters by which works are condemned either do not bear the penalty of reserved excommunication, or indeed bear it but one afterwards removed, or do not indicate books by name, in reality this clause today has force only concerning 82 books which in the eighteenth century were proscribed by apostolic letters,¹² concerning the work of Fr. Vigil,¹³ and concerning two books of J. Nuyts,¹⁴ which Pius IX condemned by Briefs of June 10 and August 22, 1857. Wherefore in sentences of this kind inquiry must be made only from the beginning of the eighteenth century.¹⁵

Yet it easily happens that, on account of another cause, because they have been written by a heretic and defend heresy, they are prohibited by law under the penalty of excommunication specially reserved.

When those retaining are punished

7. And retaining the same books: knowingly and in that manner in which it is prohibited under grave obligation. Cf. above n. 51 and 58.

Who those printing are

8. Printing, in the commentaries on the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, were understood as all who cooperate proximately, by mortal cooperation, toward "printing." Cf. Lehmk., II, 924.

But, from the general canon which we proposed at the beginning, we are not forbidden, the former law having been put aside, to explain this censure according to the benignity of the present Constitution. Now it seems sufficiently discordant that the same word "Printing" be taken in a different sense in two articles, of which one excepts the other. But in article 48, unless we wish, without a compelling reason, to interpret the words more strictly than formerly, the printer is he who undertakes the work to be printed: namely the impresser, whom in French we properly call l'Imprimeur. From another side it agrees very much with our benign law not to strike with censure those workers who cannot pass judgment on the books toward whose printing they cooperate, will for the most part be ignorant of the penalty borne, and not rarely are excused from contumacy by moral necessity. Wherefore the sentence of Hollweck¹⁶ is not displeasing to us, according to which those printing are only the editor and the "impresser." The corrector, however, will be punished as reading. With us concerning workers is Boudinhon.¹⁷

Those defending. Inefficacious defense suffices

9. And defending in any way. Cf. n. 48 and 55.

Observe, since the censure strikes readers, retainers, printers, and defenders in the same manner, namely directly and principally, defense is considered as a delict consisting in itself. Wherefore it is not necessary that the effect of the defense have been obtained, or that in reality, for example, you snatch the book from the flames. The act is judged consummated by the defense itself. Cf., for example, Lehmk., cited place.

What force special reservation has

10. By the fact itself an excommunication specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover this special reservation operates:

a) So that neither Bishops can for this case, even an occult one, use the faculty which they hold from chapter Liceat of the Council of Trent; nor is the case judged contained in the faculty simply given of absolving from reserved cases.

b) So that he who without faculty shall have presumed to absolve someone from that excommunication commits an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (after the first series).

c) So that one absolved, even in danger of death, by an inferior (that is, by one who did not have at least delegated faculty), must, under the penalty of falling again into censures, after he has recovered, within a month either seek a new absolution from one having faculty, or, either himself by himself or through the mediation of a Confessor, have recourse by letter to the Holy See and obey its commands.

¹ Cf. Hollweck, Die kirchl. Strafgesetze, sec. 107.

² Lehmk., II, n. 923; Bucc., II, p. 339; B. P., t. 7, n. 424.

³ L. 2, tr. 1, chapter 15, n. 1.

⁴ On V. der Velden, p. 621.

⁵ P. 124, 3, n. 103.

⁶ De Cens., t. 7, 456. Yet against this, Piat, cited work, p. 625, because works published after this Bull cannot be said to be prohibited by name through it.

⁷ Yet this cause has that peculiar thing, that there is only one work of Molinos, Guida spirituale, besides two little works which afterwards were published together with the former work. Nevertheless we judge that the nominal indication is lacking which is required for incurring excommunication. The propositions of the work were proscribed as heretical; but since the writer retracted the errors, the work does not seem to be that of a heretical author.

⁸ Appendix III, pp. 126, 129; II, n. 923; p. 340.

⁹ Nothing prevents our present Constitution, although in itself it softens the former laws, from increasing their sanction accidentally. From September 5, 1757 to November 11, 1784, by seven letters in the form of a Brief, works were proscribed under the penalty of reserved excommunication latae sententiae for laymen, and of suspension latae sententiae for clerics. In the same way, on August 2, 1851, two works of J. Nuyts were proscribed. That suspension is suppressed by our law; but, as it seems to us, now for all, even clerics, who unduly read those works, there remains, from our article 47, the penalty of excommunication which is specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff.

¹⁰ Das kirchl. Bucherverbot, in this place.

¹¹ Ius Decretal., t. 3, n. 121, note 117.

¹² Cf. Hilgers, Der Index, p. 90 and following. He diligently explored this matter and afterwards accurately exhibits it in his valuable chronological Index of proscribed works (same place, pp. 418, 475). The same warns that those books can be found with difficulty, so that they can now do little harm.

¹³ Defensa de la autoridad de los gobernios y de los obispos contra las pretensiones de la curia romana (6 vols.).

¹⁴ Institutiones ecclesiasticae; Tractationes in ius ecclesiasticum universum.

¹⁵ Thus Avanzini, cited work, pp. 130, 131.

¹⁶ Cited work, pp. 48, 49, notes 1 and 2.

¹⁷ Cited work, p. 304. Wernz, n. 121, note 118, seems to favor us sufficiently.

Those who, without the approval of the Ordinary, print books of the Sacred Scriptures or annotations or commentaries on the same, or cause them to be printed, fall by the fact itself into an excommunication reserved to no one.

Difference from the Tridentine censure

126. 1. Thus, by expressing it more clearly, the Tridentine excommunication is renewed,¹ which nevertheless struck only anonymous books, while, according to interpreters of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (which confirmed the same censure), books which bear before themselves the name of the author are now also comprehended.

It is necessary only that the approval of the Ordinary was given

2. Without the approval of the Ordinary. It is enough, for escaping the censure, that it has been given, although perhaps not in writing nor appended in the book. And although regulars besides need the license of their Prelate, they do not commit the excommunication if the book is approved solely by the Ordinary of the place.

Who are printing?

3. Printing, in the present case, seem to be only those who either are owners of the typography or sustain their person, so that they conduct the matter in their name. For the Tridentine text in the cited place contains commands and penalties which cannot be accommodated to workers, etc. Cf. Pennacchi, Ballerini, Arndt,² Hollweck,³ against Piat (on Van der Velden), p. 861.

Causing to be printed

4. Causing to be printed: as the editor of the book, he by whose care the book is printed; not necessarily the author, for example, if he merely gave or sold the manuscript, caring nothing for the printing.

Who absolves from this excommunication?

5. Excommunication reserved to no one. Therefore every Confessor can absolve from it, provided that contumacy has ceased.

¹ Session 4 (Decree concerning the edition and use of sacred books). As Hollweck, Die Strafgesetze, etc., sec. 108, 1, wishes, also for this reason it is established a little more severely than in the Council of Trent, because the Tridentine decree did not clearly comprehend Sacred Scripture itself.

² Avanz.-Penn., t. 2, appendix 38, p. 232; note 62 on Gury, II, 789; cited work, pp. 246, 247, n. 180.

³ Cited place. This sentence, which earlier, by I know not what law, R. D. Van Coillie, Collat. Brugg., p. 551, had accused of too much benignity, he sincerely confessed in the Commentary in this place to be sufficiently pleasing to himself.

But those who have transgressed the other things which are prescribed by these General Decrees should, according to the diverse gravity of guilt, be seriously admonished by the Bishop; and, if it shall seem opportune, they should also be coerced by canonical penalties.

Arbitrary penalties

127. 1. This article, against transgressors who have violated other precepts of the General Decrees than those which are sanctioned by excommunication latae sententiae, establishes arbitrary penalties, since judgment concerning their opportuneness and gravity is permitted to the discretion of the Bishop, provided that they are canonical, that is, received in the ecclesiastical forum, and that a congruous admonition has first been made.

Sanction of particular Decrees

2. Although those penalties seem to sanction the General Decrees alone, particular decrees are fortified by the same penalties, since they prohibit individual books "under the penalties declared in the Index of forbidden books."

1. To n. 30. Concerning works which, every refutation omitted, set forth and report false dogmas, destructive of religion or morals, as the inventions and thoughts of others, Benedict XIV has words full of just severity in the Constitution Sollicita ac provida, sec. 21. Cf. p. 196.

2. P. 87, l. 19, read Clement XII.

Twelve of this kind are reviewed in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, all indeed, except the tenth, already contained in the Bull Coenae: to which is added the thirteenth, from the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, issued 28 Aug. 1873.1 In very recent times another excommunication acceded for repressing the EXCLUSIVE (Veto) of civil power (cf. n. 1327).

Therefore Pius IX declares subject to such a censure:

1314. I. "All apostates from the Christian faith, and all and individual heretics, by whatever name they may be reckoned, and of whatever sect they may exist; and those believing them; and their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders of them."

1. By APOSTATES and HERETICS understand those who have sinned gravely against faith by an internal and external act, according to what was said n. 438 sqq.; 573, 2; 596, 3.

2. BELIEVERS, of apostates or heretics, are those who implicitly sustain their errors, declaring in general that these or those heretics think rightly; for example if someone says: "I believe what Calvin believes," etc. Likewise, if someone attends the sermons of heretics, not indeed drawn by curiosity of hearing, or by greed for money, but led by the intention of assenting to false doctrine, to which in a confused way he already offers faith.

3. RECEIVERS: those who receive or conceal a heretic as such, not as a friend or blood-relative, in their home, so that he may escape the penalties of heresy. FAVORERS: those who furnish favor to heretics, whether notorious or occult; either positively by praising them, commending them, for example before the government, promoting the exercise of heretical worship, opening schools for them for the sake of fostering heresy, etc.; or negatively, by omitting, without just cause, denunciation of them; or correction, when they are bound by office to make it.1 All those incur the same excommunication who enroll themselves even merely by name in a heretical or schismatic sect, for whatever cause this may be done. Likewise those who contract marriage before a heretical or schismatic minister attached to sacred things (Holy Office, 22 Mar. 1879, and 18 May 1892; Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 15, p. 284). DEFENDERS: those who, in whatever way, defend either the errors of heretics; or protect their persons, for example by impeding them from being brought before judges or punished by them. Nevertheless those are not to be numbered among defenders who praise the style, elegance, or knowledge of the author of a heretical book, unless perhaps the praise redounds to approval of the doctrine itself (VII, 300-308). As regards absolution of heretics, see n. 443.2

Note. If the Bishop has reserved absolution of this sin, the confessor would need a twofold faculty. See nevertheless what we shall say n. 1348, note.

1315. • II. "All and individual persons knowingly reading without authority of the Apostolic See the books of the same apostates and heretics, defending heresy, as well as books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters; those retaining, printing, and in any way defending the same books." This censure is in force today from the Constitution Officiorum, n. 47, and draws its force from it.

By the name of book is understood a writing which consists of some bulk and unity of object. Wherefore under the name of book do not come newspapers or daily papers, letters, sermons, smaller booklets, just as neither do certain pages separated from a prohibited book (Holy Office, 21 Apr. 1886); nor even probably manuscripts, for "today we take books to be those which are published in type," as D'Annibale says (Summula, III, 141); now this censure must be interpreted according to the sense received today. On the contrary, under the name of books come periodical writings (livraisons, revues) or individual fascicles destined to compose a volume (Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1892; Monit. eccl., VII, P. I, p. 266); likewise translations of a work into another language (St. Alph., VII, 281).

1. Therefore books prohibited by this censure are of a twofold kind: a) Books of apostates or heretics, provided that concerning these two things at the same time it is established: that the author is publicly held as an apostate or heretic, whether from the sect to which he belongs, or from the pertinacity with which he hands down and defends heretical doctrine; that heresy is not only contained in the book, but is also defended. b) Books of any author, prohibited by name or by the express title of the work, and that under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, through Apostolic Letters in any form, containing these or similar expressions: "from the plenitude of our Apostolic authority," or "by Apostolic authority" (Pennacchi, I, p. 117).

Therefore the censure does not extend to books prohibited through general Decrees, or condemned by some Sacred Congregation, or entered by name or in the mass into the Index; nor to books of infidels or Jews, unless perhaps the conditions which we have enumerated are verified in them. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1911, p. 734; Hilgers, Der Index, p. 90 sqq.

1316. 2. The EXCOMMUNICATED PERSONS, the things to be posited having been posited, are the following:

a) Readers. To read, strictly speaking, is to look with the eyes and perceive with the mind the things which are written. Wherefore he does not read who only materially runs through with the eyes a book composed in a language unknown to him, nor he who hears another reading, even by his command, as Navarrus and others probably teach, against many (VII, n. 292). Therefore readers in a relatively notable quantity are bound by the censure.

But when will the quantity be notable? The older theologians, Lugo, disp. 21, n. 85; St. Alph., VII, 284, 292, say that the object of reading is notable: either one or another page, or a proemium in the case in which less dangerous matter is set forth there; or a few lines, if precisely there heretical doctrine is defended. - Recent authors teach that the matter is notable: either 3-4 pages, if they contain truly dangerous things, or 30 pages, if the danger contained in them is less. Thus Noldin, II, 700. But we ask whether the circumstances of the times and the end of the Constitution Officiorum ac munerum, of which account must certainly be had, demand this, that one depart by such large steps from the opinion of the older authors? Cf. Ami du Cl., 1912, p. 952. More rightly, in our judgment, Lehmkuhl (I, 1335) thinks: He sins gravely, he says, who without faculty reads a place which treats specially of prohibited matter, or, if the matter is not dangerous, a notable part, for example one or another page of larger format. Cf. the things which Vermeersch wisely notes, de Prohib. libr. (ed. 4), p. 43 sqq.

b) Retainers, for a notable time, for example for three days, whether with themselves, or with a friend, although endowed with faculty of retaining, but from whom they can demand the book back at their own pleasure; otherwise if with a pact not to demand it back except after purgation of the book or license obtained; although they do not retain it for reading, as, for example, a depositary, borrower, bookseller, or associate having co-ownership in a literary society (Kon., n. 1704, q. 8). This nevertheless does not seem to extend to public libraries (Noldin, n. 53). He does not seem to retain who is merely custodian of a library, for in reality he neither detains nor possesses. But it is disputed whether under the name of retainers come binders of books (les relieurs). Strictly speaking it must be affirmed, yet from epikeia this retention seems permitted if they bind them for one having faculty. In other cases the reason of damage will very often excuse (Vermeersch, p. 39). But he is excused who retains for a longer time while waiting until he hands it over at a suitable time to the Superior, or to another having license. Nor is the censure incurred if that part of the book which gave occasion to the prohibition is destroyed in such a way that it can no longer be read.

c) Printers, under which name, besides the editor and owner of the printing-house, come all those who knowingly and proximately concur toward the edition of the book. Cf. the cited Instruction of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar. - See what was said n. 524.

d) Defenders; whether by deeds, by propagating books, exposing them for sale, hiding them lest they be handed over to the judge or burned; or by words, by praising them, excusing them, etc. Nevertheless he who praises not the depraved doctrine of the book, but the style or knowledge of the author, is excused from the censure (VII, l. c.).

1317. • III. "Schismatics, and those who from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time being pertinaciously withdraw themselves or depart."

The censure touches: 1. SCHISMATICS properly so called, namely those who boldly establish or follow new Churches. Such are, for example, the Old Catholics. 2. Imperfect schismatics, namely those who, led by true malice, do not wish to obey the Roman Pontiff existing for the time being, holding themselves as freed from his power. From these are certain writers, called liberals, who under a futile pretext pertinaciously reject the decisions and commands of the Roman Pontiff (Pennacchi, I, p. 10, annot. 1). 3. Those giving their name to a society for vindicating the rights of the people in the election of the Supreme Pontiff, or promoting it or in any way favoring or adhering to it (Sacred Penitentiary, 4 Aug. 1876). Cf. A. S. S., vol. 9, p. 352.

But the censure does not touch: a) those who detract from the temporal dominion of the Roman Pontiff; b) those who simply refuse to obey his commands, because they are grave and burdensome, or from hatred toward his private person; c) him who should refuse to be subject to the Pontiff insofar as he is suspect to him, or doubtfully legitimate, that is, not yet received by the universal Church because of an election doubtfully valid; d) him who departs from obedience due to his own Bishop, even pertinaciously. Except if he refuses to be subject to the Bishop because he does not wish to have him as legitimate pastor; for this is the same as not wishing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff who sent him (Konings, 1708).

1318. IV. "All and individual persons, of whatever state, grade, or condition they may have been, appealing from the ordinances or commands of the Roman Pontiffs existing for the time being to a future universal Council; as well as those by whose help, counsel, or favor the appeal shall have been made."

The following are excommunicated: 1. Appellants; and the reason is that they not only do injury to the supreme head of the Church, but also present an appearance of schism. Indeed, if someone should appeal because he thought the Pope did not have supreme and infallible authority in the Church, he would furthermore be a heretic and would be punished by a double excommunication. - But by ordinances and commands, from which it is unlawful to appeal, are to be understood all those things by which the Roman Pontiff, even through a particular and disciplinary Decree, commands something which regards the good of souls; but not those things which refer to civil rule. He who should appeal from a dogmatic Decree would also be excommunicated as a heretic. See as regards colleges, etc., n. 1376.

2. Cooperators, "by whose help, counsel, or favor the appeal shall have been made." - The censure does not touch him who should appeal to the present Council or to a future Pontiff, nor him who should approve an appeal already made by others.

1 For the sake of helping memory, use these little verses, if you please:

Heretic, reader, tearing, crying out, or striking,
Impeding, compelling, prohibiting, falsifying, dishonest,
Usurping, retaining, intruded by whatever name;
All these guilty ones must present themselves at Rome.

1 Instruction of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar to the parish priests of the nourishing City, 12 Jul. 1878 (A. S. S., vol. 11, p. 168). There he further declares that parents who send children to a heretical school do not incur the censure. For they are not truly favorers of heretics.

2 To this excommunication there have been added, in favor of faith in the City, the four following, specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. The following are excommunicated: a) All those who, even without the will of adhering to heresy, and only for the sake of human respect, give their names to the enclosures of heretics, of any denomination whatever. b) Those who are present at non-Catholic functions, or services, as it is usually said, or hear one preaching, with the intention that they may give themselves to the same, insofar as, as they impiously say, they can be persuaded by him. c) Those who, having become favorers of the spiritual ruin of another, induce in any way and see to it that others go or come to the halls or temples of heretics to hear conferences. d) Those who publish in type invitations to the aforesaid conferences and the themes of the same; because of the favor which, by such action, they furnish to the propagation or confirmation of heresy. Same Instruction, A. S. S., 11, p. 172.

1319. • V. "All killing, mutilating, striking, capturing, imprisoning, detaining, or hostilely pursuing Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and legates or nuncios of the Apostolic See, or casting them out from their dioceses, territories, lands, or dominions; as well as those commanding these things, or holding them ratified, or furnishing help, counsel, or favor in them."

By this censure are punished: 1. Those exercising cruelty against the LEADERS OF THE CHURCH, whether against their bodies, or against their liberty, or against their dignity, with the intention of harming them; or casting them, once received, out from places subject to their jurisdiction. But those are not bound by the censure who simply do not receive them, or expel them only from a city.

2. Cooperators, that is, those commanding, furnishing help or favor. Indeed, those holding the aforesaid crimes ratified incur the present excommunication. But for this it is required: a) that the crime was done in their name; b) that at the time of the delict perpetrated they could have commanded it; c) that they approve it by some grave external action, for example by writing, congratulation, applause, praise, etc. (VII, 267).

N. B. This censure must not be confused with that which begins Violentas manus, etc. (n. 1329), for protecting any ecclesiastical person whatever.

1320. VI. "Those directly or indirectly impeding the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, and, that is, also, recurring for this to the secular forum and procuring or issuing its commands, or furnishing help, counsel, or favor."

The following are excommunicated: 1. Those impeding by force, threats, or command any exercise whatever of ecclesiastical jurisdiction,1 whether this be ordinary or delegated; whether of the internal forum, which the Sacred Penitentiary governs, or of the external, in which both the Roman Congregations and the Ordinaries of places pronounce law (cf. n. 138). But they impede directly or indirectly: directly, if they themselves obstruct the person endowed with jurisdiction, for example if someone threatens death to a Bishop lest he issue a censure, confer a benefice, visit a diocese, send preachers, acquire or alienate goods, change a parish priest, etc.; indirectly, if they obstruct efficaciously in another thing, or in another person, for example by sequestering the Bishop's goods, vexing his officials or familiars, etc.

2. Those recurring to the secular forum, or to secular magistrates, and procuring its commands, so that they may obstruct a sentence, namely, or an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Of this kind are those who, elected by the suffrage of the people, and furnished with the mandate of the civil power, dare, by obstructing the Church, to intrude themselves into parochial or episcopal governance (A. S. S., vol. 7, p. 702). Cf. Excomm. XI, n. 1325. See Monit. eccl., 1910, ap. Nouv. Rev. Theol., 1911, p. 246.

3. Those issuing commands, or the civil judges or magistrates themselves, who frame and issue commands in their own right, for impeding some act of jurisdiction. But actuaries, heralds, and couriers are not excommunicated. The reason is both because all these obey necessity, although perhaps they furnish their work with a willing mind, and because the law, when it wished them to be held by censure, declared this formally.

4. Cooperators, or secondary impeders, namely those who, by some reason sufficiently efficacious and gravely culpable, either furnished help to the persons reviewed above, by physically cooperating with them; or furnished counsel or favor, by morally cooperating in such a way. - Of this kind are, for example, those who elect, help, and favor INTRUDED pastors.

Note. Certain governments have established a tribunal for judging concerning abuse of ecclesiastical power. He who recurs to such a tribunal against Decrees of a Bishop incurs this grave censure. "Some authors wish (D'Annibale, l. c., n. 61; Gabriel a Varceno, n. 9) that those recurring do not incur excommunication unless the effect has followed; others however (Del Vecchio, I, 574; Grandclaude, in h. exc., n. 2; Avanzini, ed. 2, note 7) say that unjust recourse to a civil tribunal, for impeding Decrees of an ecclesiastical judge, suffices; and this opinion seems more probable to us." Cf. Haringer, App. ad l. VII S. Alph., n. 26.

1321. VII. "Those compelling, whether directly or indirectly, lay judges to draw ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal, contrary to canonical dispositions; likewise those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church."

By this censure are struck: 1. Those who violate the privilege of FORUM, or the immunity of ecclesiastical persons, whether in a criminal cause or in a civil one.

By COMPELLING are understood any private persons whatever, even priests, who, with no permission of ecclesiastical power, call any ecclesiastical persons whatever, whether in a criminal or penal cause, to the tribunal of laymen, and compel them to be present there. Pius X, in the Motu proprio Quantavis diligentia, 9 Oct. 1911 (A. A. S., III, p. 556). - From these things it follows that under the name compelling are understood those who, in a public penal cause, constitute themselves a civil party, or who cause an ecclesiastical person, as witness, to appear in any cause whatever. Thus from the authentic declaration of the Supreme Pontiff to the Bishop of Larino, 11 Jan. 1912 (ap. Monit. eccl., 1912, p. 4). - Cf. A. A. S., VI, p. 277.

It must be noted, however, that mere denunciation before civil officials is not touched by the censure (Ami du Cl., 1912, p. 1035).

By the words contrary to canonical dispositions, allusion is made to multiple cases in which a lay judge can proceed licitly against clerics, whether in civil matters, or even in criminal ones, for example if a cleric has been degraded, etc. But where, with the Holy See permitting or silent, the privilege of FORUM no longer is in force, nor can the civil Right of private persons be obtained from an ecclesiastical judge, the censure seems to cease by the very fact1 (cf. n. 201 and 2234).

They are struck: 2. Those who issue laws or decrees against the LIBERTY or RIGHTS of the Church. These words are very widely open: for by them are expressed all the rights and liberties which belong to the Church, even the right of acquiring by acts either of last will or among the living; the right of alienating, leasing her goods, etc. (cf. n. 874).

Moreover, by the censure are struck the authors of laws and decrees of this kind, that is, deputies and senators who are efficacious causes; the prince who subscribes his name to them or promulgates them; likewise ministers, governors, prefects, municipal officers, etc., who issue decrees attacking some right of the Church, as, for example, decrees by which monasteries or pious places are suppressed.1

But they do not incur the censure: heralds or officials who promulgate such decrees or see that they are observed; notaries who draw up acts according to their norm; litigants who use those decrees; nor judges who accommodate their sentences to them. But consider whether they do not fall into another censure, for example from the fact that they injure ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

1322. VIII. "Those recurring to lay power for impeding letters or any acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from its legates or delegates whatever, and those directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution; or, by reason of them, injuring or terrifying either the parties themselves or others."

The present censure protects the Letters and Acts of the Holy See, that is, documents proceeding either immediately from the Roman Pontiff and from the Holy See, for example from the Sacred Penitentiary, or from the other Sacred Congregations (Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1892);2 or mediately through legates, nuncios, etc.

The following are excommunicated: 1. Those recurring, for impeding them, whether by appealing or provoking, to lay power, of whatever grade that power may be; and this, in the more probable opinion, although the recourse has suffered rejection.3 2. Those prohibiting promulgation, namely that which induces the obligation of law; or execution, for example by impeding the letters from obtaining their effect, as if someone intercepts them, or prohibits a notary from drawing up instruments concerning them, or from handing over instruments already drawn up. 3. Those injuring, as to the body, or terrifying, by very grave fear, either the parties themselves, that is, the persons who are helped by those letters; or others, for example advocates of the parties, executors, and finally all to whom the acts obtained are referred in some way (De Angelis, l. I, tit. 29, n. 6).

1323. IX. "All falsifiers of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and of supplications concerning grace or justice, signed by the Roman Pontiff, or by the vice-chancellors of the Holy Roman Church, or those taking their place, or by command of the same Roman Pontiff; as well as those falsely publishing Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief; and also those falsely signing supplications of this kind under the name of the Roman Pontiff, or of the vice-chancellor or one taking the place of the aforesaid."

By Apostolic Letters here are not understood letters or Rescripts of the Sacred Congregations or of Nuncios.

Therefore the following are excommunicated: 1. Those who falsify Apostolic Letters, etc., namely by changing, adding, or taking away something by which the sense is corrupted, suppose if the Pontiff has conceded something for three years, and the petitioner changes it into five years.4 - 2. Those who falsely publish either true letters, but secretly and against the will of the Pontiff; or letters altogether false or corrupted, just as if they were authentic. Otherwise, if you publish doubtful letters as doubtful, or if you relate them historically, as published by another. 3. Those who falsely subscribe with the name of the Pontiff, for a grace made. As regards those who use false letters, cf. n. 1350.

1324. X. "Those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin, even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for confessions, without some grave infamy and scandal about to arise, can receive the confession of the dying person."

It is said: 1. Those absolving, even with crass and supine ignorance (Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1892); nor do those simulating absolution escape excommunication (Resp. S. Poenit., 1 Mar. 1878; Holy Office, 10 Dec. 1883; A. S. S., 27, p. 555). - But the censure does not strike him who only hears the accomplice in confession; nor probably him who indeed absolves, but without advertence.

2. An accomplice in a shameful sin; by which name comes every external, grave, certain, and formal sin from each side, against chastity, which must be subjected and actually is subjected to absolution as necessary matter.

3. Even in the article of death, if, etc.; whence the accomplice does not avoid the censure, although he validly absolves, if he does not take care that another confessor or priest be present to the dying accomplice. See more at n. 1780.

Note. This censure is called most specially reserved; because in the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to the Holy See even in a special way, which is conceded to Ordinaries or missionaries, this case is expressly excepted, as is clear from several Decrees of the Holy Office. It is similarly excepted in the Bull of the Crusade (Monit. eccl., I, p. 173, 269).

1 Note that here it is a question only of the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, but not of the jurisdiction of religious Orders, as regards the use of privileges; nor of the exercise of sacred Orders, as regards conferring them, reading Mass, etc.; nor finally of acts of mere administration (D'Annibale, n. 57).

1 D'Annibale, n. 65. - The privilege of forum for the above-said causes is no longer in force in Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland.

1 D'Annibale, n. 68; cf. Syllab. Pius IX, n. 32, 33, 45, 47.

2 Collect. S. C. de P. F., 2172.

3 D'Annibale, Bucceroni defend the contrary opinion (apud Lehmkuhl, II, 1199).

4 Lehmkuhl (II, 1200) judges that those who fabricate Apostolic Letters are not subject to the censure, if they do not publish them.

1325. XI. "Those usurping or sequestering jurisdiction, goods, revenues pertaining to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices."

Preliminary note. Four excommunications are issued against those who dispose illicitly of the GOODS OF THE CHURCH: the first in the present article, if they usurp goods which pertain to ecclesiastical persons by title of church or benefice; the second in the following article, if they invade the goods of the Roman Church; the third, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff from Trent (n. 1347), if they usurp the goods of any benefice or pious place whatever; and finally the fourth, reserved to no one (n. 1353), if in an illicit way they alienate ecclesiastical goods of whatever kind.

1. Therefore the GOODS which this article protects are: a) jurisdiction, even temporal or delegated; b) temporal goods, indeed even rights to the same; c) revenues pertaining to ecclesiastical persons, not by any reason whatever, but by reason of their churches, or secular or regular benefices. But the goods of vacant benefices are not comprehended, nor those which pertain to Monts of Piety, hospitals, cemeteries, lay chaplaincies, sodalities of laymen, or the fabric of a Church (cf. n. 2235). Nor do the goods of monasteries, which were reviewed in the Bull Coenae, seem to be comprehended here (Avanzini, note 34; D'Annibale, n. 90).

2. THE FOLLOWING ARE EXCOMMUNICATED: a) Usurpers, that is, those occupying another's thing, designated above, as owed to themselves and pertaining to them by right. - Whence thieves, robbers, plunderers, etc., do not incur this censure (Holy Office, 9 Mar. 1870); nor probably those who acquire for themselves, by acts either of last will or among the living, a thing usurped by others; because they do not properly usurp, although they sin and incur other penalties (cf. n. 1347). b) Sequestrators, that is, those pronouncing sequestration by judicial office, or even executing it, and thus impeding goods from being received by the designated persons. Cf. however what was said n. 526, II, 5.

Likewise, from the Encyclical Letters of Pius IX, 21 Nov. 1873, for Switzerland, and from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 May 1874, for the Venetian and Milanese provinces, those are declared bound by a censure peculiarly reserved to the Holy See and by other penalties "whoever in the aforementioned dioceses, with the people voting, elected to the office of parish priest or vicar, dare to seize the pretended possession either of the Church, or of rights and goods, and to discharge the duties of ecclesiastical ministry."

This excommunication is also incurred by the followers of the clerical-liberal society, or emancipatory society of the clergy, who devote their work to the popular election of sacred ministers (S. C. Conc., 27 Jan. 1878).

N. B. The Instructions of the Sacred Penitentiary concerning those who buy or retain usurped goods, see n. 1031; concerning intruded persons, n. 1327, Question.

1326. XII. "Those invading, destroying, detaining, by themselves or through others, cities, lands, places, or rights pertaining to the Roman Church; or usurping, disturbing, retaining supreme jurisdiction in them; as well as those furnishing help, counsel, or favor to each of the aforesaid."

This censure protects the TEMPORAL DOMINION of the Holy See. - The following are excommunicated: 1. Those who by themselves, or through others, invade, etc., cities, lands, places, or rights, namely temporal and principal rights. 2. Those who usurp, or disturb, or retain the supreme and temporal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in these, for example those who impede the Roman Pontiff from publishing laws in these places, exacting taxes, etc. (cf. n. 1325 B, v. Usurpers). - 3. Cooperators, who furnish help, counsel, or favor to each of the aforesaid: namely through a formal, efficacious action, free from grave fear and coercion, for example the first magistrates of each province, city, land, or town.

The following are not excommunicated: a) 1. soldiers who invaded Rome, unless they were volunteers; b) those who fulfill municipal or other duties for protecting public tranquility: unless they furnish an oath by which they promise active obedience to the usurper, or unless they execute such things as are opposed to divine and ecclesiastical laws; c) those who, before the intruded government, discharge the office of consul and legate; d) a fortiori those who furnish only remote work, for example by providing victuals to usurpers, leasing buildings, serving, etc., as is clear from various Responses of the Sacred Penitentiary (A. S. S., I, p. 557-566; II, p. 675).

Note. As regards adherents, although they are not reviewed here, nevertheless they certainly incur the aforesaid excommunication, as is clear from the Encyclical Letter of Pius IX issued on 1 Nov. 1870. But for this, according to the more common opinion, it is required that adhesion or approval of the delict, for example in public papers, furnish help or favor, that is, that it truly concur toward the spoliation, or maintenance of the spoil (Patavin., 200, 202).

1327. XIII. To the specially reserved excommunications another must be added, which the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, 5 Sept. 1873, issued for protecting the Right of capitular vicars against INTRUDED PERSONS (A. S. S., 7, 401 and 702).1

By this censure are punished: 1. Canons and dignities of vacant cathedral churches who shall have dared to concede and transfer the care, governance, and administration of the vacant church... into one nominated and presented by lay power from concession of the Holy See, or elected by right by the capitulars themselves, before the exhibition of Apostolic Letters. 2. The one himself nominated and presented, or elected as above, to the vacant church, who dares to take up its care, governance, and administration, under the name of provider, vicar general, or another name. 3. All who have obeyed the foregoing, or furnished help, counsel, or favor, of whatever state, condition, preeminence, and dignity they may have been. Cf. n. 1361, 1375, 1380, where other penalties are noted.

Furthermore: 1. The aforesaid Canons and dignities are punished with the penalty of privation of ecclesiastical fruits and revenues, to be incurred by the very fact and to be relaxed by the Roman Pontiff. 2. The nominated one exists deprived of that right which perhaps had been acquired for him by the nomination.

IT IS ASKED. What things must Catholics observe as regards INTRUDED PERSONS?

Resp. Behold the principal prescriptions which Pius VI gave to be observed with respect to intruded persons in FRANCE, and by which now one must stand everywhere: 1. The intruded parish priest cannot be approached for the administration of Baptism, except in the case in which there is no other person willing to baptize; nor is it licit to discharge the office of sponsor, if perhaps the intruded person baptizes. - 2. It is not licit, even on feast days, to hear Mass celebrated by an intruded person, although another cannot be heard; nor is it licit to be present at the sermon and other functions of the intruded person, or to ask other ministries of office from him, or to commit to him the celebration of Mass. 3. It is not licit to receive communion from an intruded person, not even for satisfying the Easter precept. 4. Although one must genuflect before hosts consecrated by an intruded person, nevertheless care must be taken, lest in offering this worship Catholics seem to communicate with schismatics, that the meeting of the intruded person be avoided while he carries the Eucharist. 5. It is not licit to approach an intruded parish priest for contracting marriage: whence, if no other means is available, nor can the Superior provide another parish priest or presbyter, the faithful ought to contract without the presence of a pastor. - 6. It is not licit for women, after childbirth has been completed, to receive from intruded persons the blessing which is usually given to a woman after birth. 7. Funeral rites of the dead must be celebrated by the legitimate pastor, even in private houses, if they cannot be done otherwise. But if the intruded person carries the corpse to the church, Catholics should neither accompany the funeral, nor recite sacred prayers, nor perform other rites of the Church associated with him (Ninzatti, n. 1728; cf. Acta Pii VII, II, p. 84). See other things n. 1439.

Twelve are numbered:

1º All apostates from the Christian faith and all and each heretics and schismatics,

from can. 2314. This censure from § 2 of the same canon is reserved in a special way to the Apostolic See, if absolution is to be given in the forum of conscience.

For explanation the author n. 1314 can be approached. Note, in the censure now in force, receivers, favorers, etc., concerning whom in can. 2316, are no longer comprehended. But he who is suspected of heresy and within six full months from the contracted penalty has not amended himself, is also liable to the aforesaid excommunication from can. 2315, but, as it seems, only after a sentence at least declaratory. Then note that the present censure is incurred by schismatics, concerning whom formerly in another article; cf. the author n. 1317. It is said that the censure is reserved for absolution in the forum of conscience; because from the same canon § 2, if the delict concerning which there is question has been brought to the external forum, the local Ordinary, the Vicar General being excluded however of himself, can absolve the delinquent, with those things being observed which must be observed, in the external forum, and by this absolution the reservation is also taken away in the internal forum. Those suspected of heresy are enumerated in canons 2316, 2319 §§ 1 and 2, 2320, 2332 and 2340 § 1.

2º When the work has been made public, publishers of books of apostates, heretics and schismatics, which defend apostasy, heresy, schism, and likewise those defending the same books or other books prohibited by name through apostolic letters, or knowingly reading or retaining them without due license,

from can. 2318 § 1. As regards the explanation, see the author n. 1315. But observe, in this censure printers are no longer included, and in their place come publishers of books, and therefore the censure is contracted only after their delict has been consummated, i.e., after the work has been made public. Schismatic books are also added. As regards books of apostates, heretics and schismatics, the censure extends to books which defend apostasy, heresy or schism; formerly it was only said: "which defend heresy."

3º If someone not promoted to the sacerdotal order shall have simulated the celebration of Mass or heard sacramental confession,

from can. 2322. This censure is new. It is easily understood.

4º All and each, of whatever status, grade, or condition they may be, even royal, episcopal, or cardinalitial, appealing from the laws, decrees, mandates of the Roman Pontiff for the time being to a Universal Council,

from can. 2332. For explanation, see in the author n. 1318. The new redaction of this censure is more specified as regards persons and as regards acts of the Roman Pontiff; but cooperators are not excluded from the excommunication, although they are not named, because by the law itself, from can. 2231 and 2209 §§ 1-3, they incur the penalty.

5º Those having recourse to the lay power for impeding letters or any acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See or from its Legates, or directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution, or by reason of them injuring or terrifying either those to whom the letters or acts pertain or others,

from can. 2333. This censure was already had in the Const. of Pius IX under n. VIII; see in the author n. 1322.

6º Those who issue laws, mandates, or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church,

from can. 2334, 1º. This censure also was had in the Const. of Pius IX under n. VII, 2nd part. Cf. the author n. 1321.

7º Those who directly or indirectly impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, having recourse for this to any lay power,

from can. 2334 n. 2. This censure is the same as before, because cooperators, according to the things said above under 4º, are comprehended by the law itself. For explanation, see in the author n. 1320.

8º If someone against the prescription of can. 120 shall have dared to draw to a lay judge, even by simple citation, someone from the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or Legates of the Apostolic See or higher Officials of the Roman Curia on account of affairs pertaining to their office, or his own Ordinary,

from can. 2341. By this canon the censure which was had in the Const. of Pius IX under n. VII is restricted and more determined; cf. in the author n. 1321. The higher Officials of the Roman Curia are the Assessors and Secretaries of the Sacred Roman Congregations, the Regent of the S. Penitentiary, and those who govern the Tribunals or Offices of the Holy See. The censure is restricted for these to the case in which they are cited on account of affairs which pertain to their office.

9º He who shall have laid violent hands upon the person of a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church or of a Legate of the Roman Pontiff,

from can. 2343 § 2 n. 1 and

upon the person of a Patriarch, Archbishop, Bishop, even only titular,

from the same canon § 3. This censure is now enunciated in a simpler manner than before. Nor here are cooperators expressly named, but they are comprehended by the law itself, as was said under 4º. For explanation, see the author n. 1319.

10º Those usurping or detaining, through themselves or through others, goods or rights pertaining to the Roman Church,

from can. 2345. This censure also expresses more concisely that which was had in the Const. of Pius IX under n. XII. The explanation is in the author n. 1326. The censure itself is limited

to "usurpers," which word comprehends all those who violate goods or rights and retain them for themselves as things or rights owed to themselves, and to "detainers." Nevertheless cooperators are included according to the norm of those things which were said under 4º; cf. also in the author n. 1325, 2º, a).

11º All fabricators or falsifiers of letters, decrees, or rescripts of the Apostolic See, or those knowingly using the same letters, decrees, or rescripts,

from can. 2360 § 1. This censure formerly was had under two heads, which now are united, namely under n. IX § 2 and under n. III § 3 of the Bull of Pope Pius IX; cf. in the author under n. 1323 and 1350. Because all cooperators also incur it, the new censure does not differ from the old.

12º If someone through himself or through others shall have falsely denounced a confessor before Superiors for the crime of solicitation. From this censure the delinquent can be absolved in no case unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and has repaired, according to his powers, the damages, if any have followed from it, with a grave and long penance moreover having been imposed,

from can. 2363. Formerly this delict, without censure, as a sin reserved in a most special way, was reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, and this reservation even now remains from can. 894; cf. in the author, vol. II n. 1772. But now moreover a censure has been added from this canon. See ibid. the note to num. 1770, where it is said what among other things follows for practice from this addition. The reservation of the sin regards the internal forum; the reservation of absolution of the delict because of the censure regards rather the external forum and the internal forum only by accident.

1701. - Query. How many and which are the excommunications latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner?

Resp. They are the following thirteen.

I. "All apostates from the Christian Faith," and all and each heretics, by whatever name they are reckoned, and of whatever sect they exist, and those believing them, and their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders whatever of them." Bull Coenae, § 1.

1° By "apostates from the Christian Faith" are understood those whom we defined in n. 266 at the end. But whether the crime of apostasy consists in withdrawal alone, so that profession of some false religion is not required, is disputed. I think withdrawal suffices.¹

For practice it matters little whether withdrawal alone suffices for apostasy, since this most certainly suffices for heresy, and to that extent is subject to the censure. Besides, apostates do not differ essentially from heretics, but only according to more and less, which, according to the axiom of Law, do not diversify the species. Wherefore apostates are named in the Constitution only for greater clarity, because they are not accustomed to be called heretics.²

But withdrawal certainly is required, that someone be called an apostate. But since the condition of withdrawal certainly is present in Pantheists, Naturalists, Rationalists, and many others of this kind, who commonly are called Unbelievers, Freethinkers, or Liberals, it can be asked whether, in the opinion which holds withdrawal to suffice, such as, alas! among Catholics themselves in this our age some (and would that there were not many) are found, who are more or less imbued with the aforesaid errors, or even, the duties of a Christian man neglected, live indifferently as if having no religion, yet without having denied the Christian Faith, or at least having deserted it in such a way that they do not wish any longer to be numbered among the faithful of Christ, are subject to the censure as apostates? I respond that these cannot be considered as true apostates, but it can happen that they are to be held as heretics.

2° By "all and each heretics, by whatever name they are reckoned, and of whatever sect they exist," understand those guilty of heresy: a) properly taken (n. 265); b) so formal (n. 266. 1°; 268. q. 1° and 2°), that no ignorance, not even affected, is present (n. 268. q. 1°. R. 2°); c) manifested by word or deed; d) at least occult (n. 266. 3°).

Note. - 1) From heresy that is notorious and brought to the judicial forum in whatever way (i.e., even if the heretic has spontaneously brought his delict to that forum), the Bishop absolves for both forums, either by himself or through a delegate.³ - 2) The Pope alone can absolve from heresy, whether notorious or occult, which has not yet been treated in the judicial forum.¹ See nevertheless the faculty of our Bishops, p. LXXI. 15. - 3) The Bishop (and among us any priest laboring in the Sacred Ministry) can receive in both forums the abjuration of new converts. Cf. n. 1264.

3° "And those believing them." - Believers in apostates or heretics are those who indeed have not given their name to an unbelieving or heretical sect, nor subjected themselves to such a sect, but externally show themselves to adhere to or believe the errors of apostates or heretics, for instance if someone were to say: "Doellinger rightly thinks concerning the Primacy,"² or, with the intention of assenting to the errors of a heretic (or not only from curiosity or another motive), were to hear his preaching or read his writings.

4° "And their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders whatever of them" (i.e., of apostates or heretics). See n. 1700. q. 4°. Resp. c). d). f), and cf. Nouv. Revue Theol.³ Hence, as a defender, he is held by the censure who either praises the doctrine of a heretic (certainly in particular that doctrine which is contrary to the Faith), or disputes for the heretic, or responds to an objection against him; but not he who praises the learning, eloquence, or talent of a heretic.

Note. - In order that the censure be incurred, it suffices that the apostate or heretic to whom one believes, whom one favors, etc., be known as such to the one believing, favoring, etc.; nor is it necessary that he be denounced or even notorious.⁴

1702. - II. "All and each persons knowingly reading without the authority of the Apostolic See the books of the same apostates and heretics defending heresy, and also the books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters, and those retaining, printing, and in any way defending the same books." Bull Coenae, § 1, and Rule X of the Index.

The reading of books can be prohibited by natural law, or by positive law, or by laws of both kinds.

Namely, the reading of those books is prohibited by the law of nature itself whose use brings danger of sin, and indeed insofar as the same law commands that this danger be avoided. - See n. 1448. 1449.

But by positive law books are proscribed either immediately by the Supreme Pontiff, or by Councils, even general ones, or by the Index of prohibited books, or by another competent authority, e.g., by Ordinaries of places, and indeed either by name, i.e., with the title of the book expressed, or in general, indicating namely not individual works, but certain classes of works, the use of which is forbidden to the faithful. But the prohibition embraces the reading, retention, defense, and printing of such works.¹

There are added ecclesiastical laws by which especially the edition or printing of books without approval, e.g., of the S. C. of Indulgences or of the Ordinary, is prohibited.²

1703. - In this article a twofold species of prohibited books is contained: the former embraces the books of apostates and heretics; the latter, books prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters.

Books of the former species, that they may fall under excommunication, must bear before themselves two conditions, namely: 1° That they be of apostates or heretics; 2° That they defend heresy.

Books prohibited through Apostolic Letters, that they may fall under excommunication, must 1° be prohibited either in the form of a Brief, as most often happens, or in the form of a Bull, or through encyclical letters, or through any other extrinsic form, when in the letters themselves is read: from the fullness of Our Apostolic authority, or by Apostolic authority; for all these are called by the generic name Apostolic Letters. Therefore the censure does not comprehend books prohibited through decrees of the Index; but it is extended to books prohibited through Apostolic Letters before the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, provided they were prohibited, or, if there is question of prohibiting them, are prohibited under excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff. Thus Avanzini. Godschalk otherwise.³ But in the Index it is enunciated in what manner individual books are proscribed. 2° They must be prohibited by name, or by their proper titles.⁴

1704. Questions. - Query 1° Whether the books of those who believe apostates and heretics, of whom there is discussion in n. 1701. 3°, or of favorers and defenders (ib. 4°), if they defend heresy, are comprehended under this censure?

Resp. Negatively, because the books defending heresy are prohibited of those who pertain to the first class, i.e., of those who are leaders of apostates and heretics, or who formally pertain to their sects, or to true and certain heretics. Thus Avanzini.¹

Nevertheless it is not required that the author have been juridically condemned as a heretic or apostate, or have been born in a heretical sect; nor that the book have been written by heretics or apostates alone, with Catholics not cooperating; nor that the author's name be expressed; namely it suffices that: 1) in the book there be contained an indubitable defense of heresy or of apostasy from the Faith, and 2) that the defense have been made so pertinaciously that it cannot be doubted that the author of the book is certainly a heretic or apostate; and thus books of believers, favorers, etc., can be comprehended under the censure. - But books of infidels or of Jews are not comprehended under the censure, since they are neither apostates nor heretics.

Query 2° Whether books of apostates and heretics in which heresy is simply handed down, without being defended, are comprehended under this censure?

Resp. Negatively, since in the Constitution, which in this respect differs from the Bull Coenae, defense of heresy is required. Yet it suffices that the author has applied his talent for this end, that heresy be defended, whatever otherwise may be the matter of the book. Nouv. Rev. Th. T. II. p. 623.

Query 3° Whether periodicals, or newspapers, of the same persons, defending heresy, are prohibited under this censure?

Resp. They do not seem to be; because newspapers, insofar as the sheets remain complete by themselves, do not come under the name of books.² Nevertheless periodical writings, or fascicles destined for composing a volume, are comprehended by the censure.³

Query 4° Whether under the name of a book there also come little books of too slight a bulk, for instance a letter, a sermon, and whether manuscripts come under it?

Resp. to the 1st. Negatively. The reason is, because a penal law is to be interpreted strictly. Say the same concerning sheets separated from the book itself.¹

Resp. to the 2nd. Affirmatively, according to the more common opinion, to which St. Alphonsus adheres more, and which he says is altogether to be counseled.²

Note. - Under the name of a book there comes also the translation of the same, made in whatever language.³

Likewise, according to the opinion to which St. Alphonsus adheres more, there come books of Catholics to which a heretic has added notes so copious that they must be said to consist from these rather than from the writings of Catholics.⁴

Query 5° Whether under the censure there come books of very ancient heretics, or books containing errors wholly obsolete, which, every danger having been removed, are held as merely historical documents?

Resp. Negatively, because as to these the end of the law has entirely ceased.⁵

Query 6° Who in the Constitution come under the name of a) those reading, b) those retaining, c) those printing, d) those defending in any way?

Resp. to a). He who reads by himself, but not, at least probably, he who hears one reading, although the reader reads either by the counsel or by the command of the hearer. The reason is, because he does not read. - Nor does he incur the censure who reads himself, if he is ignorant of the language in which the book is written. - But when a book is prohibited, not only that part which gave cause for the prohibition, but the whole book is prohibited from being read, and besides this whatever part of the book is understood to be prohibited, as the dedicatory epistle, the prologue, the index. - But if the work has been distributed into several volumes, the Doctors dispute whether the prohibition is extended to those in which heresy is not defended, or which did not give cause for the prohibition. The opinion of Lugo pleases us more, who denies this if the subject matter of the work admits division, as history; but otherwise affirms it. - The prohibition ceases if you have withdrawn, or erased, or blackened that part which gave cause for the prohibition, so that it can no longer be read, provided the book was not proscribed because it treats of Religion expressly, or in hatred of the author.¹

Resp. to b). 1° The owner of the book, although it is deposited with another; 2° the depositary; 3° the borrower; 4° one retaining it in pledge. Nor is it enough to hand the book to another torn into sheets for wrapping medicines, salted goods, etc., or to hand it to one having license to retain it, unless you hand it over on this condition, that you do not reclaim it until you have obtained license of reading.²

Resp. to c). Immediate cooperators in the printing (n. 315), whether material cooperators, or (according to the truer opinion) those hiring their labor as conducive to this, as the owner of the printing-house, the editor, etc.³

Resp. to d). See n. 1700, q. 4°, R. c), d). But under the name of those defending there probably do not come those who would praise only the style or talent of the author, but not his doctrine.⁴

Resp. It is required:

1° That they act knowingly, as is said in the Constitution. Hence ignorance, at least gross ignorance, and probably even affected ignorance, excuses. Yet it suffices to know by report, or by a witness worthy of faith. (Cf. n. 1664, q. 3°, R. 2°.)⁵

2° That grave matter be present.⁶ - But smallness of matter: a) On the part of those reading or printing is to be considered formally, and thus sometimes a few lines suffice, if they defend heresy.⁷ - b) On the part of those retaining it is present, if someone retains a book for a short time, e.g., one or another day, or retains it while awaiting the opportune time to hand it over to the Ordinary, or to one having license, or to a confessor. Otherwise, if he were to retain it for a long time, even though he abstained entirely from reading it.¹ - c) On the part of those defending, smallness of matter does not seem admissible.²

3° That these things be done "without the authority of the Apostolic See," as the Constitution speaks, except however the case of a pious and learned man, who from necessity reads in order to convict a heretic, recourse to the Superior not being open.³ By what reason our Bishops can communicate the faculty of reading prohibited books, see p. LXXI. 21, and p. LXXII. 2.

But the clause: for the purpose of attacking them, does not cause that you sin gravely or incur the censure, although you do not read for that end, but e.g., from curiosity.⁴

Query 8° Who among those who belong to literary societies, among which books prohibited by this article are kept, incur the censure?

Resp. 1° Certainly the society as such does not incur it, since a community cannot be struck with excommunication. See n. 1669, q. 6°.

Resp. 2° As to individuals, distinguish. For they belong to the society either a) in such a way that they have co-ownership of the books, or b) in such a way that they belong to the assembly of those who preside over the society and direct its affairs by counsel, vote, etc., or c) in such a way that they are mere ministers of the society, as e.g., a librarian, or d) in such a way that by a contribution of money they procure for themselves the right to the use of the books.

If a), they incur the censure as owners of the books [this number, q. 6°, R. to b)].

If b), subdistinguish. The president will incur it, as is plain of itself; but not the remaining members who in no way favor the purchase of prohibited books. Thus in the hypothesis that those members lack co-ownership of the books.

If c), the librarian is held by the censure, because he comes under the name of those retaining [this number, q. 6°, R. to b)]. As to the others, see whether perhaps from the circumstances they are to be numbered among those defending [this number, q. 6°, R. to d)].

If d), they do not incur it, if they do not use their right for the use of prohibited books. Except if in a particular case they defend prohibited books or by circumstances are judged to defend them.

Thus, saving a better judgment; for I have sought this question in vain among the Doctors, even among those who have written expressly on the prohibition of books.

1705. - The Index was composed and published by order of Paul IV in the year 1558. - Pius IV perfected it with the Council of Trent, and published it in the year 1564. - Clement VIII enlarged it in the year 1595. - The Congregation of the Index was instituted by St. Pius V.¹

But the Index prohibits books partly by certain classes, as in the ten Rules of the Index, and in the Decrees concerning prohibited books not expressed by name in the Index;² partly by indicating, in alphabetical order, either the titles of books or the names of authors.

1706. - I. There are prohibited absolutely: 1° all books of heresiarchs (both of those who after the year 1515 invented or stirred up heresies, and of those who are or have been Heads or Leaders of heretics, such as Luther, etc.), even if not erroneous, or not treating expressly of Religion.

2° Books of heretics which treat expressly of Religion.

3° Books treating expressly of obscene things, with the exception of ancient books written by pagans, which, on account of elegance and propriety of speech, and insofar as there is question of ecclesiastical law alone, are permitted; nevertheless they are by no reason to be read before boys.

4° All books treating of astrology, divination, and sorceries.

5° All books entered into the Index without any addition.

II. There are prohibited under clauses:

1° All books which, before the year 1515, either the Supreme Pontiffs or Ecumenical Councils condemned, in the same way as they had formerly been condemned. By this rule however there are not prohibited the old books of pagans, nor even, according to Theologians (see n. 1704, q. 5°), the books of heretics of earlier centuries, as of Tertullian, Eusebius, etc.

2° Books written either a) by heretics, although not treating of Religion; or b) by those who afterward fell into heresy, or after a fall returned to the bosom of the Church, although written in a Catholic manner, unless they have been approved.

3° Bibles in the vernacular language, unless they have been approved by the Holy See, or published with notes drawn from the Holy Fathers, or from learned and Catholic men. Thus, not without foundation, Craisson interprets the Decrees and Responses of the Holy See.¹ I add: provided that a special prohibition has not been made by the Bishop concerning those versions which have been published without the approval of the Holy See or of the Ordinary. But Bishops cannot approve versions without the aforesaid notes, as is plain from the concession made to them in the year 1757.²

4° Books entered into the Index with the clause: until they are corrected, i.e., until they have appeared in a new corrected edition, which has been approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Index.

III. It is established that no book and no writing be printed without the license of the Ordinary.

1707. Questions. - Query 1° Whether the law of the Index, prohibiting the reading of certain books, obliges by natural law, or only by positive law?

Resp. It presses by both laws, at least of itself; because it prohibits books only because they are pernicious, and bring in a proximate danger of perversion or of sin; but by natural law each one is held to flee danger of this kind. Hence even if the obligation of the Index were not acknowledged somewhere, nevertheless the reading of books entered into the Index would be prohibited under grave sin, at least in general. On this matter St. Alphonsus observes:³ "All Theologians ... add, that not even with the license of the Pontiff can the reading of that book be permitted, which could be an occasion of subversion to someone."¹

Two things besides are to be noted.

1° Private persons ought to obey the commands of the confessor in these things which regard the reading of books. Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition responded in the year 1832 to the Bishops of Switzerland asking: "Whether the faithful, with a safe conscience, can read Periodicals or books which have not undergone the censure of the Ordinary?" Resp. "Let them have recourse to the confessor."

2° The confessor himself ought carefully to seek the direction of the Bishop, and diligently to keep before his eyes the very grave warning which St. Alphonsus¹ handed down, namely: "In this matter it is expedient ordinarily to follow the stricter opinions."

Query 2° Whether among us the rules of the Index are to be observed and urged?

Resp. Affirmatively, if, when they are neglected, Faith or morals are exposed to proximate danger; indeed, even apart from this danger, those rules which have not been abrogated and morally speaking can be observed, are to be observed and, if it can be done prudently, urged.²

Especially: a) "Obscene books ... expressly so called cannot be read by anyone without grave sin, because of the proximate danger of exciting lust."³

b) "Those who read books treating of history, geography, and other matters of this kind, in which many things opposed to the Faith are found here and there, seem to be excused, because of the very great difficulty which exists in discerning and comparing books; for since most books written in the English language have non-Catholic authors, it can scarcely happen that Catholics, without very grave detriment to knowledge and other inconveniences, abstain from them. Therefore the kindness of the Church seems to indulge this, lest otherwise pious souls be ensnared. Moreover, care must diligently be taken that an occasion of perversion not arise; and therefore one must labor with every zeal, that expurgated books be had."⁴

c) Those things are to be observed which were said in n. 1706, II. 3°, concerning Bibles in the vernacular language. - Kenrick however observes:⁵ "If there are any recently converted to the Faith, who retain Bibles handed down by the hands of their ancestors, in which also the names of parents and children are inscribed, as is the custom, they do not seem to be compelled against their sentiments and affections, to cast them away, the Apostle admonishing: Receive him who is weak in faith."¹

d) As to the printing of books, the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore² recalls the law of the Church forbidding that "books concerning Religion and the worship of God" be committed to the press without the approval of the Ordinary.

Note. - Let these things said be understood insofar as there is question of the Index alone, apart from those things which we have explained in nn. 1702-1704 according to the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, and which we shall say in n. 1741, 1°, according to the same Constitution.

1708. - III. "Schismatics, and those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves from, or recede from, the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time." C. 5. Dist. 19. caus. 43. q. III. can. 26. Bull Coenae, § I.

1° By "schismatics" are understood those who pertain to perfect schism, namely those who arrogate to themselves an authority independent of the Roman Pontiff, and, thus setting themselves up as an authority, constitute new churches, make assemblies, dispose concerning the affairs of the Church after the likeness of a supreme independent authority.

2° By "those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves from, or recede from, the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time," are understood those who pertain to imperfect schism, namely who with full malice and obstinacy refuse to obey the person of the Roman Pontiff, holding themselves released from his supreme divine authority. I said: 1) holding themselves released from his supreme authority. Hence this censure does not hold those who refuse to obey on account of the thing commanded, e.g., in fasts, etc.; but only those who cast off the authority of the Roman Pontiff. I said: 2) from his supreme divine authority. Hence they do not contract this censure who decline his temporal dominion.

Note. - a) He who refuses to be subject to his own Bishop, because he does not wish to have him as his proper and legitimate Pastor, is the same as not wishing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff who sent him. If however someone perseveres in subjection to the Roman Pontiff and in communion with the other Churches, separation from communion with his own Bishop alone does not subject him to the censure.

b) It is not necessary that they be rebels against the authority of the Holy See taken universally; but it suffices that they are rebels against the obedience of that person who actually and legitimately occupies the See of Blessed Peter.

3° "Pertinaciously withdraw themselves," i.e., in the same way as heretics from the Faith, or knowingly and willingly. Wherefore the censure would not hold him who refused to be subject to a Pontiff insofar as he was suspect to him, or hateful, or doubtfully legitimate, i.e., not yet received by the universal Church because of an election doubtfully valid.

1709. - IV. "All and each, of whatever state, grade, or condition they shall be, appealing from the ordinances or mandates of the Roman Pontiffs existing for the time to a future universal Council, and also those by whose aid, counsel, or favor the appeal has been made." Bull Coenae, § II.

1° "To a future Council." Therefore if appeal has been made to a future Roman Pontiff, or to a present Council, there is no place for the censure.

2° By "ordinances, or mandates" here are not understood ordinances or mandates as to matters which pertain to temporal life and civil government; but only ordinances which regard the government of the universal or particular Church, and which pertain to its spiritual authority, even if exercised upon private persons.

1710. - V. "All killing, mutilating, striking, capturing, imprisoning, detaining, or hostilely pursuing Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and Legates or Nuncios of the Apostolic See, or casting them out from their dioceses, territories, lands, or dominions, and also those commanding these things, or holding them ratified, or furnishing aid, counsel, or favor in them." St. Pius V, c. Infelicis. Bull Coenae, § XI.

1° "Hostilely pursuing," i.e., with the intention of harming, not merely of frightening.

2° "From their dioceses," etc., i.e., from places subject to their jurisdiction.

3° "Casting out," i.e., expelling one previously received, and indeed from the whole tract of jurisdiction. Therefore they are not bound by this censure who simply do not receive, or who expel from some city of the diocese.

4° "Those commanding" ... "furnishing counsel" in these things. See n. 1700, q. 4°.

5° "Holding ratified." Ratification here requires: a) that the striking, etc., was done in the name of the one ratifying; because "no one can hold ratified what has not been done in his name"; b) that at the time when these things had been perpetrated, they themselves could have admitted them, and therefore could have commanded them; for thus ratification is drawn back and is equated to mandate;¹ c) that not only by intention, but by some grave external action, e.g., writing, congratulation, applause, praise, etc., they approve the indicated delicts.²

1711. - VI. "Those impeding directly or indirectly the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, and those recurring for this purpose to the secular forum, and those procuring or issuing its mandates, or furnishing aid, counsel, or favor." L. III. T. XXIII. c. 3 in 6°. Bull Coenae, § XVI.

1° They are struck by this excommunication who impede the exercise of ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum. - I say: of jurisdiction, namely insofar as it is distinguished from the exercise of Order, which two however are not always easily discerned from one another. Generally the power of Order pertains chiefly to the sanctification of souls; the power of Jurisdiction chiefly to the governing of the society of the faithful; therefore it belongs to the former to bless and consecrate; to the latter to rule and govern. Wherefore to the power of Order it pertains to perform Sacred things, to administer the Sacraments, to bless and consecrate persons and things, etc. To the power of jurisdiction it pertains to issue laws, mandates; to bind, loose; to confer benefices, ecclesiastical offices; to determine or take away ecclesiastical things, to send preachers, to visit a diocese, and to commit to others those things which belong to Order.

2° In this article those who impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and those who elude the effect of the same jurisdiction by recourse to a lay tribunal are entirely distinct. Therefore the particle: and those recurring for this purpose, has a disjunctive force, so that it signifies the other class of those who likewise are comprehended under the same censure. Hence both those impeding and those merely recurring are struck with this excommunication.

3° "Those impeding," namely by some deed, for instance by force, threats, command; for he is said to impede who causes another unwillingly to cease from an action. Therefore if someone uses counsels, entreaty, fraud, he is rather said to persuade, obtain, deceive. - "Those impeding directly," namely if someone obstructs the very person wishing to exercise jurisdiction, and in that thing which he intends to do, e.g., while he threatens the Bishop with recourse to the lay forum, if he is transferred by him to another parish. - Indirectly, namely if he obstructs him in another matter or in another person, as if he threatens him with some grave evil under pretext of an injury brought upon himself, but in truth that the Bishop may desist from transferring him to another parish; if by threats he prohibits judges given to him by the Bishop from undertaking those things which belong to their office.

4° "Those recurring." In order to incur the censure on this account, according to some it is required that a mandate or prohibition be obtained against ecclesiastical judges; according to others this is not required, but it suffices that one merely have recourse. - By forum some¹ understand civil power, whether legislative, executive, or judicial; others² only judicial power.

5° By "those issuing" are understood judges, and all others of the secular forum, who issue mandates which impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but not actuaries writing them out, etc.³

6° "Those furnishing aid, counsel, or favor." See n. 1700, q. 4°. But these incur the censure only after by this reason the exercise of jurisdiction has been impeded, or recourse (in the opinion of those who think this suffices) has taken place.

1712. - VII. "Those compelling, either directly or indirectly, lay judges to draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal contrary to canonical dispositions: likewise those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church." Martin V, c. Ad reprimendas. Bull Coenae, § XV.

Query. Whether lay judges, who by an office imposed by the laws either of a kingdom or of an empire, which are contrary to ecclesiastical sanctions, draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal, that they may discharge their said office, incur a censure of this kind?

Resp. Negatively, according to the authentic response which was given in the Instruction of the S. C. U. Inq., February 1, 1871, by which it was declared: "The excommunication does not touch those who are subordinate, even if they have been judges, but has been laid only upon those who, compelled by no one, either do such things, or compel others to do them."

1° "Those compelling directly or indirectly." Indirectly, e.g., by fear impressed upon the relatives of a judge, or through another upon the judge himself.

2° "Contrary to canonical dispositions," there is allusion to Concordats of a kingdom or of an empire with the Apostolic See, which remain in force. - There is allusion also to the case in which some ecclesiastical person has been duly degraded, and delivered to a lay judge to be punished. - Likewise to other cases: when, e.g., an ecclesiastical person draws lay persons into judgment; for an ecclesiastical person can present himself in a lay court in a non-ecclesiastical cause as plaintiff; but he himself cannot be drawn as defendant. - The Commentators add:¹ "This censure ceases in those places where the privilege of forum, the Holy See permitting or being silent, has been abrogated; for it is utterly incredible that the most wise Pontiff wished suddenly, and with scarcely one word, to stir up a very wide and very tangled crop of controversies and annoyances. Cf. nn. 112-114."

3° "Those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty and rights of the Church." Only those issuing them, or the authors of laws or decrees, are excommunicated, as for instance among us the members of legislative or municipal assemblies, and likewise the President, Governor, or Prefect of a City who do not veto laws or decrees of this kind. - Laws are those things which are constituted perpetually by the Supreme Power. - Decrees are those things which are issued generally by any power whatever, as for instance by a Prefect of a City, by Municipalities, etc. - Against the liberty or rights of the Church. These words are very widely open, and strike every kind whatever of laws or decrees by which not only the exercise of ecclesiastical power, whether of jurisdiction or of Order, but any other right is intercepted, restricted, disturbed. See examples in the Syllabus, pp. 19-21, 24-33, 41-54, p. XLII-XLIV.

1713. - VIII. "Those recurring to lay power for impeding letters, or any acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from its Legates or Delegates of whatever kind, and those prohibiting their promulgation or execution directly or indirectly, or on account of them injuring or greatly frightening either the parties themselves or others." L. III. T. XXIII. c. 4 in 6°. Bull Coenae, § XIII.

1° By the words: "letters," namely Apostolic, what is understood, see n. 1703. - "Acts" are called those things which are done at Rome by the Roman Pontiff, whether they contain a spiritual or temporal matter; or by his command, as citations, processes, etc.

2° This article comprises a threefold kind of persons: 1) "Those recurring" to lay power for impeding letters, or any acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from the Legates or Delegates of the same Apostolic See, of whatever kind.

2) "Those prohibiting" directly or indirectly the promulgation or execution of the same acts.

3° "Those injuring" (the body, goods), or "greatly frightening" (with exceedingly grave fear) the parties themselves, i.e., the persons who have obtained some Rescript either of grace or of justice from the Holy See or its Legates, or some sentence favorable to themselves, etc., or those injuring or greatly frightening others, for instance the patrons of the same parties by reason of the acts obtained, or executors, or persons to whom the acts obtained are referred by some reason.

1714. - IX. "All forgers of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and of supplications concerning grace or justice, signed by the Roman Pontiff, or by the Vice-Chancellors of the Holy Roman Church or by those acting in their place, or by mandate of the same Roman Pontiff; and also those falsely publishing Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and also falsely signing supplications of this kind under the name of the Roman Pontiff, or of the Vice-Chancellor, or of those acting in the place of the aforesaid." L. V. Decr. T. XX. c. 7. Bull Coenae, § VI.

Note. - It is required that these things have been committed with evil intent, and, if the interest of another is involved, that they gravely harm or can harm this other. For the crime of forgery is "an alteration or suppression of the truth made to the fraud of another."¹

As to those using false Apostolic letters, see n. 1735.

1715. - X. "Those absolving an accomplice in a base sin, even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for Confessions, can receive the Confession of the dying person without any grave infamy and scandal about to arise." Benedict XIV, c. Sacramentum Poenitentiae, § IV. Cf. c. Apostolici muneris, §§ III, IV.

1° "Those absolving": but not merely those hearing the Confession of an accomplice,² nor those absolving with ignorance, even gross ignorance, of the censure; for the Constitution of Benedict XIV, from which the censure is taken, requires daring (cf. n. 1406, 2°, Note, and n. 1664, q. 3°). Those feignedly absolving are held by the censure. (47) p. 428.

2° "An accomplice" (see n. 1404, I, 1405, q. 2°), "in a base sin" (see n. 1405, q. 1°).

3° "Even in the article of death, if," etc. (see n. 1405, q. 3°, q. 4°, q. 5°).

Note. - Concerning absolution from this censure, see p. LXXI, n. 16, note 2, b).

1716. - XI. "Those usurping, or sequestrating, jurisdiction, goods, revenues, belonging to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices." Bull Coenae, § XVII. L. I. T. VI. c. 13 in 6°.

1° "Those usurping," i.e., occupying a thing from another as if by right to it, or as if it pertained to themselves. Therefore thieves, robbers, plunderers, etc. do not incur this censure (S. C. O., March 9, 1870), nor those who acquire a thing usurped by others by acts either of last will or among the living.¹

2° "Or sequestrating," i.e., jurisdictionally impeding lest goods, etc., be received by the said ecclesiastical persons.

3° "Jurisdiction," whether spiritual or temporal, e.g., of the Roman Pontiff in his dominion.

4° "Goods," whether immovable or movable, or rights. Cf. n. 593.

5° "Revenues," i.e., whatever the thing bears, or is received by reason of the thing, not stole fees.

6° "Belonging to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices." Therefore not those things which belong to hospitals, lay sodalities, Monasteries (others however affirm²), cemeteries; nor goods assigned to preserving or repairing sacred buildings, or to performing sacred things.³

Moreover current law establishes four excommunications incurred by the very fact against those who dispose illicitly of ecclesiastical goods, etc.: the first, of which in this number; the second, third, and fourth, of which in nn. 1717, 1738, 1740. The first and second are reserved specially to the Supreme Pontiff; the fourth simply to him; the third is reserved to no one.

1717. - XII. "Those invading, destroying, detaining, by themselves or through others, cities, lands, places, or rights pertaining to the Roman Church; or usurping, disturbing, retaining supreme jurisdiction in them, and also those furnishing aid, counsel, or favor to each one of the aforesaid." Bull Coenae, § XX.

1° This excommunication looks to the defense of temporal dominion belonging to the Holy See. Hence rights and jurisdiction are here understood as temporal; nor are any rights whatever meant, but principal rights, or those which are proper to a Prince as such; and supreme jurisdiction, i.e., that which belongs to the Prince alone, as for instance the right of life and death, the right of imposing taxes, of creating Magistrates, etc.

2° They are excommunicated: a) who destroy or invade cities, etc., force being used; b) who usurp or disturb the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in these things, e.g., who impede the Roman Pontiff himself from publishing laws in these cities, imposing taxes, etc.; c) who retain this jurisdiction, or cities, lands, etc.; d) who furnish aid, counsel, favor to each one of the aforesaid. - Concerning those who furnish these things, i.e., aid to those invading, destroying, disturbing, usurping, there is no difficulty.

What concerning those who furnish these things to those detaining them? The Commentators respond:¹ "There is a twofold kind of these, ... one of those who exercise some public office. But public offices pertain either to the necessities or utilities of citizens, or to maintaining the government, or to both. The former" (under which I think comes the office of consuls, who live in foreign ports or cities, and also of legates before the pretended king of Italy) "it is harmless, other things being equal, to undertake, because a society cannot kill itself; not likewise the latter; but as to censures one must advert whether someone can abstain from these without grave inconvenience." (Cf. n. 1664, q. 5°.)

"The other kind is of those who undertake no public office. These are understood to favor, if they furnish proximate work to those retaining them, so that they remain in possession: as for instance by money, ... by writings, etc.; if remote work, not likewise; as if they rent houses to them, serve them, etc."

Note. - At the beginning of this paragraph I said that there are thirteen excommunications reserved specially to the Supreme Pontiff. Namely, to the twelve which in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis are reserved specially to the Pope, on the fifth day before the kalends of September, 1873, there acceded:

XIII. By which, in the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, there are struck:

1° The Canons and Dignitaries of vacant Cathedral Churches, who have dared to grant and transfer the care, governance, and administration of the vacant Church under whatever title, name, or color sought ... to one nominated and presented by lay power by concession or privilege of the Holy See, or, where custom is in force, elected by the Chapter members themselves to the same vacant Church.

2° Those nominated and presented, or as above elected, to vacant Churches, who dare to take up the care, governance, and administration of them, etc....

3° All those who have obeyed the aforesaid things, or have furnished aid, counsel, or favor, of whatever state, condition, preeminence, and dignity they shall be.

Moreover there is added: "But if any of the aforesaid are marked with the episcopal character, they incur by the very fact, without any declaration, the penalty of suspension from the exercise of Pontificals and of interdict from entrance into the Church, likewise reserved to the Holy See."

Besides: 1° the aforesaid Canons are deprived of fruits; - 2° those nominated are deprived of the right acquired by them.¹ (E) p. 399.

776. Penalties against transgressors. - Penalties are also inflicted against some transgressors, namely, according to can. 2318:

1. "They incur excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See by the fact itself, once the work has been made public: publishers" (that is, those who make the book public and care for its dissemination, as ordinarily are the author and the owner of the printing house) "of books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics" (but not of Catholics) "which defend apostasy, heresy, or schism" (by added arguments); - "and likewise those defending the same books or others" (of any writer whatsoever, even a Catholic) "prohibited by name through Apostolic letters" (in the form of a bull, brief, encyclical, etc., not through a decree of the Index alone, but by the Supreme Pontiff himself), by name (so that the proper title is expressed and not only the name of the author), "or knowingly" (so that ignorance excuses, even crass ignorance, yet not affected ignorance) "reading or retaining them without due permission."

2. "Authors and publishers who, without due permission, see to it that books of the Sacred Scriptures or annotations or commentaries on them are printed, incur by the fact itself excommunication reserved to no one."

In these, unlike title XXIII, can. 1384, § 2 (n. 773), books are to be understood in the stricter sense, namely, writings published by type which consist in some volume and are not so slight in bulk and weight that they are usually called by another name rather than books. Therefore newspapers are not comprehended, - nor periodicals or small fascicles, unless these are bound into one (Holy Office, January 3, 1892).

VII. Penalties against false denouncers. - Innocent confessors are to be protected from those falsely denouncing. Wherefore those falsely denouncing by themselves or through others (for example, through a confessor) incur a grave penalty, and indeed a twofold one:

a) False denunciation before ecclesiastical judges is a sin reserved by reason of itself to the Holy See. Thus from can. 894. To incur this it is necessary:

1. that a priest be denounced as guilty of solicitation properly so called, namely, in connection with confession, as was explained above;

2. that the denunciation be false (materially and formally), so that the confessor is not known to be guilty of this delict, although perhaps he is guilty of other similar delicts;

3. that the denunciation was made before ecclesiastical judges, which several understand in the stricter and formal sense concerning judicial denunciation. And, if it must be understood thus, which nevertheless is not certain, an anonymous denunciation, or a simple signed letter, would not suffice.

Ignorance does not excuse from the aforesaid reservation, because reservation of sin is not a mere penalty, but principally and immediately a calling to the tribunal of the superior and therefore a restriction of the power of the confessor, which only mediately affects the penitent (can. 893, § 1), and because no ignorance excuses from an incapacitating law (can. 16, § 1).

De Smet nevertheless judges the contrary, because according to the Benedictine Constitution that reservation is a medicinal penalty, from which, according to can. 2229 § 3, ignorance excuses if it is not crass. But this no longer has force in the new law, in which it is expressly said (can. 893) that reservation limits the power of the confessor, and in the immediately following canon (894) false denunciation is said to be the only sin reserved by reason of itself to the Holy See. Therefore it is no longer principally a medicinal penalty, but a calling to the tribunal of the superior and a restriction of jurisdiction; as is now generally acknowledged. - Besides, practically ignorance is rarely present, since denouncing persons must be admonished by the judge or delegate concerning the reservation.

b) False denunciation made before superiors incurs excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff. Thus from can. 2363. By these altogether general terms there seems to be comprehended not only strictly juridical denunciation before judges formally acting as such, but any denunciation directed to superiors even by letter; not however an anonymous one, since it has no force (Holy Office, 20 February 1867, n. 6). Surely, not only the denunciation which is made in the judicial instruction itself, but also that which seeks this and advises concerning instruction to be made against someone, is now made before superiors as such.³

³ Here also that has force which De Smet notes, o. c., n. 123 (striving to demonstrate that even an extrajudicial denunciation before a judge is a sin reserved by reason of itself), namely that otherwise "often there would be no place for the case of false denunciation in not a few places, in those not rare cases in which the Bishop proceeds in the case of solicitation from informed conscience, since then recourse to juridical denunciation is not required and often in fact recourse is not had; too often that penal law providently introduced would be eluded."

Yet ignorance excuses from the penalty, not indeed of the reservation alone, but of the censure, not however crass nor affected. From the penalty itself no one can be absolved unless:

1. he has formally retracted the false denunciation before the superior, or has already placed a means sufficient for this, or, if here and now it is impossible, has seriously promised this;

2. he has repaired according to his powers all damages following from the calumnious condemnation;

3. he has accepted a grave and long penance. Grave is that which for grave fault in the sacrament must of itself be given; long is that which lasts for about six months or beyond, with the quality of the person and the nature and frequency of the work imposed considered.

From all these things it follows:

1. the reserved censure extends more broadly than the sin reserved by reason of itself;

2. nevertheless the reservation of the sin can be contracted without the reservation of the censure being contracted, for example, on account of ignorance;

3. the reservation of the censure sometimes ceases, without the reservation of the sin ceasing, and conversely the reservation of the sin ceases, for example, in the case of a sick person who cannot leave home, without for that reason the reservation of the censure ceasing;

4. he who can absolve from one cannot always absolve from the other;

5. accomplices also are reached by each reservation, since they denounce through others; namely, those commanding, mandating, giving counsel, asking, promising, threatening, etc., in one word all who concur positively and efficaciously in the false denunciation.

507. II. Excommunications reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See.

Eleven are ordinarily enumerated.

1. "All apostates from the Christian faith and all and each of the heretics or schismatics" (can. 2314, § 1).

What heretics and apostates are was said above in I, n. 512 ff. Schismatics are not only non-uniate Greeks and Old Catholics, but also those baptized persons who pertinaciously refuse obedience to the Roman Pontiff insofar as he is head of the Church, such as the Mariavites and perhaps also the so-called associations of worship. One suspected of heresy who has not amended himself within six months from the penalty contracted is regarded as a heretic, subject to the penalties of heretics (can. 2315). Those are suspected of heresy ipso iure, for example, who presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers to be baptized (can. 2319).

If the delict of heresy, apostasy, or schism has been brought in any manner (even through voluntary confession) to the external forum of the local Ordinary, that same local Ordinary (but not the vicar general without a special mandate) can by his ordinary authority absolve the repentant person in the external forum, after an abjuration has first been performed juridically and the other things to be observed by law have been observed; but one thus absolved can afterward be absolved from the sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. An abjuration is regarded as juridically performed when it is made before the local Ordinary himself or his delegate and at least two witnesses (can. 2314, § 2). - This statute has very practical value in the reception of new converts into the bosom of the Church.

508. 2. "Publishers of the books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy, or schism, and likewise those who defend those same books or others prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters, or knowingly read or retain them without due permission" (can. 2318, § 1).

This censure was already contained in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, but has been changed slightly. To explain it, we indicate briefly: a) what books they are; b) what actions are prohibited under penalty of excommunication. We note beforehand, however, that there are many other books which indeed are prohibited under grave sin by the Code of Canon Law, c. 1399, although not under excommunication. Cf. our Man. iur. can., q. 419.

a) What books are prohibited under excommunication?

a) All books of heretics, apostates, or schismatics which defend heresy, apostasy, or schism, that is, which defend them with deliberate purpose, and not merely contain heresy. - Under the name of a book there does not come a manuscript, nor a pamphlet of small size, nor a newspaper. Nevertheless, from the declaration of the Holy Office of January 13, 1892,¹⁴⁶ those "knowingly reading periodical publications bound into volumes, having a heretical author and defending heresy" incur excommunication.

b) Books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters. Hence it is required that such a book be prohibited through Apostolic Letters, such as bulls, briefs, and so forth, but not decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office or of another Congregation. There are not many books of this kind, which in the new Index of prohibited books are marked with a dagger. - Then it is required that such a book be prohibited by name, that is, with an indication of its proper title. Therefore a prohibition in globo or in general does not suffice, as when all the works of some author are proscribed. - Finally it is required (at least probably) that such a book be prohibited under excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff.

Note. Some authors judge that two categories of books (although they defend heresy) are not prohibited under this censure:

1. Books of heretics from the first centuries of the Christian era, such as certain writings of Tertullian, Origen, Pelagius, and so forth. Thus Lehmkuhl,¹⁴⁷ citing Lacroix, Pennacchi, D'Annibale, and Lugo for this opinion.

2. Books defending heresy which were written not by heretics but by pagans, Jews, and so forth. Thus Noldin,¹⁴⁸ Cappello,¹⁴⁹ and others.

b) What actions are prohibited under excommunication? There are four: a) publication; b) defense; c) reading; d) retention. For the last two actions perfect knowledge of the censure is required, and consequently crass and supine ignorance excuses; not so for the first two actions.

a) Publication. Under this title the following incur excommunication: 1. the author of the book; 2. the printer; 3. the publisher.¹⁵⁰ Whether all those also who proximately cooperate in printing, such as typesetters, proofreaders, and so forth, are punished with this censure is not so certain. It appears, however, that this is to be denied, since they cannot properly be called publishers of the book; and therefore the old controversy concerning printers has been removed today.

b) Defense. For incurring excommunication it is required that an evil book be defended not on account of elegance of style and other good qualities, but notwithstanding the errors manifestly contained in it.

c) Reading. Someone is said formally to read a book if he surveys with his own eyes and understands in some manner the things which are contained in the book. Hence one who hears another reading does not incur the censure, provided he did not command it to be read;¹⁵¹ nor does one who does not at all understand the things which he reads. Likewise the censure is not present if the things which have been read constitute only light matter. But authors do not agree about what light matter is. Let this be the general rule: that is grave matter which of itself and ordinarily induces a grave danger of perversion in the reader. Thus sometimes a few pages are grave matter, while at other times not even thirty pages which are not so dangerous constitute grave matter.

d) Retention. For excommunication to be incurred from this, it is required: 1. that gravity be present on the part of time; one day is certainly a short time, but to retain such a book beyond a month is grave matter; 2. that the one retaining it act in his own name and not as the mandatary of another. Hence those who are custodians in the libraries of others, those who bind books,¹⁵² and so forth, are not excommunicated. Booksellers, however, who have books of this kind for sale appear to need a special permission.

Note. 1. Since only those "knowingly" reading and retaining incur this censure, any diminution of imputability, whether on the part of the intellect or on the part of the will, excuses from it (c. 2229, § 2). Hence not only prepubescent persons but, more probably, also minors do not incur this censure (c. 2204).

2. Besides the excommunication just explained, there exists another (reserved, however, to no one) against those who without due permission print or cause to be printed books of Sacred Scripture or annotations or commentaries upon them.¹⁵³

3. "One not promoted to the priestly order, if he has simulated the celebration of Mass or heard a sacramental confession" (can. 2322).

This excommunication has been newly introduced. A layman perpetrating such a crime is furthermore to be deprived of a pension or office, if he has any in the Church, and is to be punished with other penalties according to the gravity of the fault; but a cleric is to be deposed. If any non-priest has usurped other priestly functions, he is to be punished by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault.

¹⁴⁶ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1777.

¹⁴⁷ Theol. mor. II, n. 1183.

¹⁴⁸ De poenis eccl.¹², n. 61.

¹⁴⁹ De censuris, n. 226.

¹⁵⁰ Noldin, loc. cit., n. 62, teaches that neither the author nor the printer incurs this censure.

¹⁵¹ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 7, n. 292.

¹⁵² Commonly: bookbinder (French relieur, German Buchbinder).

¹⁵³ Code of Canon Law, c. 2318, § 2; cf. below, n. 526.

512. 9. "Those usurping or detaining, personally or through others, goods or rights pertaining to the Roman Church" (can. 2345).

There were five excommunications imposed against those who violated ecclesiastical goods, namely, two reserved in a special manner to the Holy See, two reserved simply to the Holy See, and one reserved to no one. Now, however, there exist only two excommunications latae sententiae, namely, this one and another simply reserved, concerning which below in n. 518. This excommunication, imposed for protecting the goods and rights of the Roman Church, strikes those usurping and detaining them. Those are called usurpers who take them away by authority, namely, rulers who have secularized the goods and rights of the Roman Church; therefore ordinary thieves and robbers are not punished by this censure. Those are detainers who purchased or leased such goods for themselves; but not officials of the state who administer those goods or acquired and detain them not for themselves but for the common use of the republic.

10. "All fabricators or falsifiers of letters, decrees, or rescripts of the Apostolic See, or those knowingly using the same letters, decrees, or rescripts" (can. 2360, § 1).

This crime is committed very rarely today, especially by laymen. Clerics committing it, however, are moreover to be coerced by other penalties, which can extend even to privation of benefice, office, dignity, and ecclesiastical pension; religious, however, are to be deprived of all offices which they have in the religion and of active and passive voice, besides other penalties established in the proper constitutions of each.¹⁵⁷

¹⁵⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 2360, § 2.

513. 11. "If anyone personally or through others has falsely denounced a confessor to Superiors for the crime of solicitation, by the fact itself he incurs an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, from which he cannot in any case be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and has repaired according to his ability the damages, if any followed from it, with a grave and lasting penance furthermore imposed" (can. 2363).

This excommunication has been newly introduced. A calumnious denunciation of a confessor (which is made juridically before the local Ordinary or before the Holy Office) induces not only a reserved censure, but also a sin reserved by reason of itself.¹⁵⁸ Therefore, although the censure may not be incurred, for example, on account of ignorance, nevertheless the reserved sin remains.

Absolution from this censure cannot be granted except under a twofold condition: 1. the penitent must first formally retract the false denunciation before the superior or his delegate; an implicit retraction therefore does not suffice; 2. the penitent must repair according to his ability the damages, if any followed from his calumny. When these conditions have been fulfilled and the faculty of absolving has first been obtained, the confessor can absolve the penitent, but must impose upon him a grave and lasting penance, for example, five decades of the Rosary to be said daily for six months.

III. Excommunications reserved simply to the Apostolic See.

According to the discipline now in force, there are eleven excommunications of this kind. The following are excommunicated:

¹⁵⁸ Ibid., c. 894.

Explanation. - The subject of this censure is threefold, namely, apostates, heretics, schismatics.

§ 2. After baptism has been received, if someone, retaining the Christian name, pertinaciously denies some truth from among those to be believed by divine and Catholic faith, or doubts concerning it, he is a heretic; if he totally withdraws from the Christian faith, an apostate; if finally he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic (Can. 1325).

Therefore, whether these apostates embrace a false religion, such as Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or not, as free-thinkers, here they come under the name of apostates. In a similar way also one must speak of heretics. It is not required that they form some new sect.

In the second paragraph the species, as it were, of this censure is declared. Absolution of excommunication incurred for these delicts in the forum of conscience is reserved in a special mode to the Supreme Pontiff. But the Ordinary, if the delict has been brought to his forum, can by his ordinary power in the external forum absolve the one returning to his right mind; one so absolved can now be absolved from the sin by any confessor, for the censure has already been removed by the Bishop. But prior to absolution there must be juridically performed abjuration, as, for example, when it is made before the Ordinary himself or his delegate and at least two witnesses.

Schismatics are those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves from the center of the unity of the Church and therefore withdraw from communion of the faithful and from due subjection toward the Roman Pontiff.

Explanation. - Here Canon 120 must be held before the eyes, concerning clerics to be convened in contentious and criminal causes only before an ecclesiastical judge, except cases in which due permission is had for convening them before a lay judge. Since permission of various Superiors is owed according to the dignity of clerics, likewise varied is the penalty inflicted against the delict committed against this canon: he who without permission of the Holy See has dared to drag before a lay judge a Cardinal, a Legate of the Apostolic See, or Major Officials of the Roman Curia on account of affairs pertaining to their function, or his own Ordinary, incurs an excommunication reserved in a special mode to the Apostolic See; he who drags another Bishop, even titular, an Abbot or Prelate nullius, or one from the major Superiors of religions of pontifical right, incurs an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See; he who without permission of the Ordinary of the place drags another person having the privilege of forum, if a cleric, incurs suspension from office reserved to the Ordinary; if a layman, let him be punished by his own Ordinary. Pius IX, Apostolicae Sedis, § 1, VII.

There are struck by the fact itself with an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See:

1°. Those violating the enclosure of nuns, of whatever kind or condition or sex they may be, by entering their monasteries without legitimate permission, and likewise those introducing or admitting them; but if they are clerics, besides let them be suspended for a time to be defined by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault;

2°. Women violating the enclosure of male regulars, and Superiors and others, whoever they may be, introducing or admitting them, of whatever age they may be; and besides, religious introducing or admitting them are to be deprived of office, if they have any, and of active and passive voice;

3°. Nuns illegitimately going out from enclosure against the prescription of can. 601 (Can. 2342).

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: CASE XXIII.—The Bull "Apostolicae Sedis" is revoked by the New Code but the censure of excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See for the crime mentioned in this case has been retained as can be seen from Canons 2333, 2334 and 2343.

Sempronius, an excommunicated (vitandus) citizen, died and was buried in consecrated ground. The bishop, hearing of this, caused the body to be exhumed and reinterred in a non-consecrated cemetery. This angered the mayor of the town, who commanded that the bishop and his vicar-general (who was a bishop in partibus) should be expelled from the town.

Titius, a friend of the mayor and at the same time hostile to the bishop, left no stone unturned to carry out the wishes of the mayor. So the bishop was compelled to fly from the episcopal city. The people, roused to anger by the action of the mayor, would not suffer him to depart from the diocese. Yet, fearful of the consequences if the order of the mayor was not obeyed, he retired by night to the residence of a neighboring bishop. The vicar-general took up his residence at the end of the diocese with a friend.

Now the question is, what crime is punished by excommunication in Part I, Article V, of the constitutions of the bull Apostolicae Sedis.

The crime which merits the aforesaid penalty is the crime of personal sacrilege committed by the contumelious treatment of the Officials of the Church. In the bull Apostolicae Sedis there are two excommunications fulminated against all who injure ecclesiastics. The first is contained in Article V, the second in Part II, Article II, Violentas manus, etc. Although the two penalties were intended to punish the selfsame crime, yet there is a wide difference between them. The first was established to safeguard the person, liberty and dignity of the hierarchy; that is of the cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and apostolic legates. The other to protect all ecclesiastics. Again the excommunication contained in Article V is reserved to the Pope modo speciali; while that in Article II is reserved simpliciter.

Thirdly, while the first ordinance is to be interpreted strictly according to the principle “odiosa sunt restringenda” the second has a most broad application. Accordingly the first excommunication is not merited by other persons or by other crimes than those specifically designated by the article in question. Hence one who would kill a bishop-elect but not yet consecrated, or who would throw mud at a consecrated bishop, would not be affected by this canon.. The second ordinance, on the contrary, since it contains a privilege which is not personal but applies rather to the clerical order, is designed to protect all who have received tonsure, even though they be excommunicated or suspended or under interdict.

From this it is evident that it may sometimes happen that one may escape the excommunication fulminated in Article V and yet by reason of his crime be affected by the excommunication attached to the violation of Article II, as, for instance, would be the case with one, who, at the instigation of the devil, would hurl some mud at his bishop.

Again it might be asked, who are affected by this excommunication? The answer is simple—all who inflict any injury on the person, or who interfere with the liberty or dignity of the tonsured cleric, in other words all who maltreat those that are protected by the two canons in question.

(a) Those who injure the person; that is those who kill or mutilate or strike such persons as are made sacred by holy tonsure. Would they be subjected to this penalty who plucked the hairs of a bearded priest or bishop? No, for this is not mutilation in the proper sense, since the beard is not a member having a function distinct from the other parts of the body.

(b) Those who interfere with the liberty, either by seizing, incarcerating or detaining a cleric. He, however, who seizes such an one and yet immediately dismisses him has escaped the condemnation of this canon.

(c) All who with hostile intention pursue or exile the prelate or the cleric. So that this censure is incurred by all who pursue with such intent even though their wicked purpose is not realized. Yet it must be borne in mind that the mere pursuit, say, with intention of terrifying, is not sufficient to bring the censure of this canon, It must likewise be remembered that to prevent a bishop from entering his allotted diocese is not the same as to exile him or eject him, and hence the censure is not merited in this instance. However, it must likewise be said that the sentence of excommunication contained in Article V falls not only upon those who kill or mutilate directly, but in like manner and with equal severity upon all who command these deeds, who approve of them, or who render help by deed or counsel or reward for the fulfilment of the wicked design.

Lastly, it may be asked, did the mayor of the town and his friend Titius, who aided him, fall under the ban of this censure, as contained in Article V of the Apostolicae Sedis? From one point of view it might seem that they did. For, by virtue of the decree of the mayor and the hostility of Titius, the bishop was forced to leave the episcopal city. Yet, on the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the bishop left of his own free will. Had the mayor recalled his decree, even if this were done merely because of the uprising of the populace, he would certainly have avoided the censure. Hence since the bishop departed of his own free will and was not driven out by force, and since the vicar, who was likewise a bishop but not residing in his own diocese, did not even leave the diocese, we think there is room to doubt as to the incurring of the excommunication. Because of this we are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the mayor and to his friend Titius and pray that God may be as merciful to them as we are.

The Catholic Church is the union, the society of all the faithful, of all those who believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ and recognize him and his Vicar as their head. Faith, then, is an essential condition of membership of the society founded by Jesus Christ. “He that believeth not shall be condemned.’ “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” But this divine society, like every other corporation or union, has a head, who is none other than its Founder, Jesus Christ. Moreover, as the Church militant on earth is a visible society, Christ gave it a visible head to rule it in his name and by his authority. This Vicar of Christ is the Pope; there is no other claimant for the office. A member of the Church, then, must be subject to the Pope. If anyone refuses to be subject to the head of the society to which he belongs, he becomes a rebel, and is cut off from membership by his own act. “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican,” said our Lord. On these principles, heretics, apostates, and schismatics have always been considered as branches cut off from the mystical vine, from the Church, and from Christ by their own act. St Paul wrote to Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid. Knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgement.’ The same Apostle wrote to Timothy that he had delivered certain heretics up to Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme. He told the Corinthians that those who made schisms in the Church acted as if they would divide Christ. They strove to divide his mystical body, the Church.

The Church has always considered heretics, apostates, and schismatics as excommunicated persons, but her discipline with regard to them has varied somewhat in minor details from age to age. Here I consider them as persons who have incurred a censure which is specially reserved to the Holy See by the new Code. According to Canon 1325:

“A heretic is one who, after receiving baptism and still retaining the name of a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any article which has to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.”

“One who altogether abandons the Catholic faith is an apostate.’

“A schismatic is one who refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him.”

In order, then, to incur the guilt of heresy, a baptized person must deny or positively doubt some doctrine which has been revealed by God and which is proposed by the Catholic Church as an article of divine faith. He must do this pertinaciously; that is, he must know that the doctrine in question is proposed by the Church as an article of divine faith and yet obstinately cling to his own opinion. One who through ignorance denies or doubts an article of the faith is not a heretic in the strict sense; he is a material, not a formal, heretic.

An apostate has altogether discarded the teaching of the Catholic Church, whether he has joined any other religious body or not.

A schismatic is one who refuses to be subject to the head of the Church or who refuses to communicate with those who are subject to him. He is not merely disobedient to an authority which he recognizes; he refuses to recognize the authority. To incur the penalties, formal schism is required; merely material schism is not sufficient.

The penalties incurred by apostates, heretics, and schismatics according to the new Code are laid down in Canon 2314. Besides other penalties, on which we need not dwell here, they incur by the very fact excommunication; and the absolution of this censure is in general specially reserved to the Holy See. Then follows a paragraph in the Code which throws light on the procedure followed in the reception of a convert into the Church from heresy or schism. In her external government, when non-Catholics ask to be received into the Church, she presumes that they have fallen under this excommunication. She knows nothing of their good faith in her external tribunal. But, in spite of the censure being specially reserved to the Holy See, if a case is brought in any way, even by voluntary confession, as in the case of a convert, before the local Ordinary, either he or his delegate is empowered to deal with it. He should receive the abjuration of heresy to be made by the convert according to law before the local Ordinary or his delegate and two witnesses, and observe whatever else is prescribed for the case. He or his delegate may then grant absolution in the external tribunal from the censure of excommunication; and after such absolution any confessor, even without special faculties, is empowered to give absolution for the sin of heresy or schism or apostasy, if any such sin has been committed by the convert.

This will explain why the leave of the Bishop should be required for the reception of a convert into the Church. An additional reason for such leave being required is because converts are usually adults, and Canon 744 prescribes that the baptism of adults is to be notified to the Bishop, so that if he chooses, in person or by his delegate, the baptism may be performed with greater solemnity. Most converts in this country at least are baptized conditionally when they are received into the Church on account of prudent doubt concerning their previous baptism.

Dr. Augustus Jessopp used to call the Protestant Reformation in England the Great Pillage. The name was a good one, and it indicated a very important aspect of that complex movement. It has been calculated that about one-third of the wealth of England at the time of the Reformation belonged to the Catholic Church, and this huge sum was taken from the Catholic Church, and what did not find its way into the royal coffers went to found new families henceforth keenly interested in maintaining the new order, or served for the maintenance of the new national Church, or of the remnant of educational establishments that were left by the Reformers.

Dr. Jessopp’s attitude was a little illogical. As a loyal clergyman of the Church of England as by law established, he held that the State or the nation could alienate Church property for a good purpose. That is not Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church in England before the Reformation was not the Church of England. It was a province, a portion of the Church Catholic or Universal; its dioceses, parishes, colleges, schools, and monasteries were subordinate societies or corporations of the one supreme and universal Society called the Catholic Church. The property of all these subordinate societies was the property of the Catholic Church. The Pope was recognized as the supreme head of the Catholic Church and the supreme administrator of all its property. When Cardinal Wolsey desired to appropriate the property of St Frideswide’s and of other monasteries to the foundation of Christ Church at Oxford, he had to obtain a Bull for the purpose from Pope Clement VII. He only succeeded at the cost of considerable delay, subterfuge, and misrepresentation. He had very great powers at the time as papal legate, but they did not enable him to alienate the property of the Catholic Church. When Henry VIII had made himself supreme head of the Church in England, it became an easy matter for him and his successors to rob the Church of its property.

Other northern countries of Europe witnessed similar proceedings. The example was infectious. Albert of Brandenburg, Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, abandoned the Catholic Church and converted the possessions of the Order into the hereditary duchy of Prussia, a bad beginning for a fateful country.

Such glaring examples had many imitators on a smaller scale. The Council of Trent did its best to put a stop to the wholesale robberies of Church property. It enacted that if avarice, the root of all evil, so gains possession of any cleric or layman, of whatever dignity he may be, even though it be imperial or regal, that he has the presumption in any way to convert to his own use, usurp, or hinder from being received by those to whom of right they belong, the jurisdiction, property, income, and rights, fruits, emoluments, and produce of any church, secular or religious benefice, lending banks for the poor, or other pious institutions, which should relieve the necessities of their ministers and of the poor, such a one lies under excommunication until he has made full restitution of his ill-gotten gains, and has obtained absolution from the Pope.

This enactment of the Council of Trent has been in substance reproduced in Canon 2346 of the new Code of Canon Law, and it is now one of the cases simply reserved to the Holy See. It is intended to safeguard the property of the Church as far as spiritual penalties can effect that object. Still, it is a penal law, and it must not be extended beyond due limits. A few cases will help to illustrate its application.

The Roman Congregations whose office it is to interpret and explain the law of the Church, have declared more than once that this censure is not incurred by common thieves and robbers who, for example, break into a church and steal a chalice or rob the poor-box. The censure is aimed at higher culprits who unjustly claim to make ecclesiastical property their own. Thieves and robbers merely seize the property and use it; they make no claim to be its owners. They are guilty of sacrilegious theft, and may be punished as such by spiritual penalties, but they do not incur this censure.

An executor or legatee who refused to pay to the priest a sum of money left by will for Masses would not seem to incur the censure. Of course he sins, and is bound to make restitution, but as the sum of money was not paid over to the Church, it never became ecclesiastical property.

On the other hand, a cleric who converted to his own use as if it were his personal property what had been contributed by the faithful for the general maintenance of religion would incur the censure. The same must be said of collectors who appropriate to their personal use what they have received for the Church.